Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 19 August 21 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Groovies[edit]

Groovies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources, just a big list of music videos that used to air on Cartoon Network. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sources can be found stating that the concept itself bore the name "groovies". -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept is certainly notable. What would you call these cartoons if not "groovies"? Mind you, this article is not abourt an individual groovie, but about the concept in general. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 10:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Delete. Although the concept is notable (as shown by the sheer number of blogs devoted to groovies, regardless of the reliability or even relevance of any individual one), the fact of the matter is that reliable sources cannot be found at this point, unless I'm missing something. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Count of Mantane[edit]

Count of Mantane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There has never been a count of Mantane or Matane. And the name of Mr Perron does point in the list drawn up by the genealogical tables of the nobility Quebec. In fact, Matane has never been a county in the sense of nobility. So, it is impossible to rehabilitate a title that never existed. Just see the french version of wikipedia for details... JF Lepage (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as notability has been confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian mafia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Albanian mafia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hi everyone I propose this article for complete deletion because:

-It is misrepresenting, misusing sources, and spewing anti-Albanian propaganda disguised as objective information on a subject that is scattered, arcane, controversial, and undefined. EVEN Belgian police acknowledge that only sensationalist reporting has led to fantasy depictions of the Albanian Mafia.

-If people want to write artcles about Albanian crimes, OK (do it in individual pages), but dont compile decades of individual, unconnected crimes in one article, to form a false image of an "Albanian Mafia". That is defamation. You can see that some of the main sources of this article are up to 25 years old, which further proves my point.

-There are several people vandalizing this article by changing original quotes and giving them a completely new meaning.

-Information is cherry picked.For many of the statements made in the article I can find other quotes saying just the opposite.

-Some information is flat out wrong. For example: The "Balkan Route" has NEVER accounted for 25-40% of the heroin smuggled into the US. That is not just a blatant lie and mis- interpretation, but also falsely implies that Albanians have been responsible for smuggling it, when in fact, especially at that time, the "Balkan Route" was mainly controlled by Serbian and Bulgarian groups.

-In the "history" section a pseudo background on the "Albanian Mafia" is given to justify the article. Albanian crime has nothing to do with the

"Kanun" or "traditional family-based clans". They commit crimes because of the poor financial situation in Albania and Kosovo. It does NOT have a "mafia" tradition like Italy. Implying that is ridiculous. Also, the original source is NOT the book "Gangs: A Journey into the heart of the British Underworld", as referenced, but the Serbian website www.serbianna.com, which has for a long time been spreading propaganda. I would appreciate if someone objective would take a look at the site and see for himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basey555 (talk • contribs) 23:18 20 August 2008

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The long list of rationales mentioned by the nominator do not, by themselves, justify deletion. False claims within the article should be deleted but please not the entire article. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While a part of the sources can be legitimately put in doubt, and should thus be removed, a considerable number are clearly OK: the US governmental sources, the Washington Post, the Independent, and Thompson's book. Certainly this article needs considerable editing, and more sources must be added, but it's hardly doubt that the papers speak a lot of it; and in Wikipedia we are not after the truth, but after reliable sources, and these don't miss: a simple search for "Albanian mafia" in the news archives turns out 315 sources, a lot of them passing the RS criteria, and also Google books provides quite a lot [1]--Aldux (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VANDALISM and the article being biased are main problems. If I just clean up the page, someone will restore everything again and again.Just in the last 2 days an unregistered member changed existing quotes several times, giving them a COMPLETELY new meaning. Also people add and delete material as they please, to fit their bias. The topic itself is highly controversial, it is not like the Italian Mafia. So if it not to be deleted for its wrong content, then I would like to propose it for deletion because of vandalism and bias. --Basey555 (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Not only is "the page gets vandalized a lot" not a valid AFD criterion, it's completely rediculous. If we deleted every page that was vandalized, there wouldn't BE a Wikipedia. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 01:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aldux and Rwiggum. Vandalism issues are not a reason for deletion. Maxamegalon2000 05:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as involved editor. The subject is notable. The term "albanian mafia" is used on at least one Interpol report in front of US Congress[2], one congressional report from the republican party[3], and it's used on several mainstream newspapers. The FBI talks about albanians working inside Balkan "mafias" and "albanian organized crime" [4] (which is an alternate name on the lead), and have news about things like an "Albanian Organized Crime Ring" [5] and other obvious references to the topics dealt with on this article [6]. Mind you, the article needs a good work-out. Also, individual crimes are not notable, but the organized crime phenomena by groups of albanians is notable. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vandalism isn't a reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xen Nightz[edit]

Xen Nightz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN artist, page seems mainly to exist as a vehicle to attack Lil Wayne. Youtube.com links, in the absence of independent sources do not help a subject pass WP:MUSIC. Movingboxes (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oh, no, that's not what my intention was when creating this article. This artist came to my attention by word-of-mouth on the internet. I (and I expect others) was looking for more information on him. I noticed he had no wikipedia page so I decided I may as well create one. He does have over 1 million views on youtube so he has notability but two are attacks against another artist. Should I delete those links? Chinatary (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I see how it may appear that way but I believe the way he became notable was from attacking Lil Wayne. So the article doesn't exist to attack Lil Wayne but that may be the actual reason why he is notable. Again, I have more research to do on the subject but the fact of the matter remains that the article is, indeed, about a subject of notability and therefore, by my understanding, should not be deleted. Though my understanding may be flawed because I am new to wikipedia, I believe that this artist should have an article. Chinatary (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's kind of strange, as this [7] seems to indicate that you are Xen Nightz. Movingboxes (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hmm, that was an interesting response. A bit unexpected. But no, that remix of "Chain Hang Low" was how I first came across Xen Nightz. I read a comment on a hip hop website somewhere that mentioned an animated remix of Jibbs' "Chain Hang Low" that was supposed to be "hilarious". A quick google showed various websites hosting the video. I went on youtube, watched it, asked the uploader (assuming he was Xen Nightz) about him self and if he had any other tracks. He claimed that he wasn't, pointed me to Xen Nightz' myspace and told me to google his name. After a while, I'm here creating this article. Chinatary (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, or do you mean his name? Like I said, I'm trying to research more. I found his Facebook address which has his name as Zak Malik. I asked his top friends on his MySpace if they knew his real name. After going back and fourth I was finally told that his whole name is Zakariya(h) Adam Abdul-Malik. I added him as a friend on facebook which revealed his age to be 23 or 25 (can't remember right now). I didn't question him on it as I have yet to talk to him personally but some of his friends on myspace claim that he is 25. Some say 24. Some say they don't know. So I deleted his age because I have no proof of that yet. Chinatary (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All this would be original research and is no basis for an article (see WP:OR). Movingboxes (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, his name and age are original research but that isn't the article is it?Chinatary (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't these things then only need one of the "citation needed" comments like this article: [[8]]?Chinatary (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. None of the sources in the article satisfies the requirements of WP:RS, as none of them are independent third-party coverage. Interesting also that the only real notability assertion in the article (1 million downloads) is also the only element in it that is unsourced. Then again, such a figure can be artificially inflated by having a bot visit the site over and over. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that bots can increase views/plays on some websites but everything about this guy adds up. From the various uploaders of his videos to the extensive amount of pages on google his name brings up. But ok, I see your point. I just don't understand how an article with no sources can be ok but not this one. Interesting. But I will still do more research to find out more about this artist.

Thanks Chinatary (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - complete lack of independent sources --T-rex 00:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading about Wikipedia on, Wikipedia. I realized, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia that "attempts to collect and summarize all human knowledge in every major language." So why do you guys keep deleting articles? Not just mine, I mean other people's articles about other people. I don't get it. For example, I was searching for a rapper named Gillie Da Kid to see if he had any ties with Xen Nightz. To my surprise, the article about him has been deleted. Not only deleted but locked from starting a new one. Yet there are articles on Wikipedia that link to and reference him.

I understand you guys have a hard job to do but if even one person is looking for information about a particular subject, why delete these subjects from Wikipedia? Seems like it's going directly against what you guys are trying to create.

My article lacks independent sources but I'm still trying to find those. I mean, why delete all the work someone has done on an article instead of leaving it up to be improved upon by others? If I was looking for this person then that means others are looking for this person. And if they are like me and reference Wikipedia for most things...this all just kind of seems backward. I think I'm doing a pretty good job gathering what little information that is out there and putting it in one spot where someone else in the world can easily find it. Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia?

But, like everything in this world, it's all up to the government (in this case, the fine admins and mods of Wikipedia). I'm not saying you guys don't do a good job, because you do. I'm just saying that it'd be nice if we could expand this a little more to help out folks looking for info on the obscure and hard to find subjects out there :)

Cheers all! Chinatary (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. I've cleaned up the article a bit, made it a stub and noted that citations are needed. Still gathering sources. Chinatary (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Myspace is not a valid source.--Freewayguy What's up? 23:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Comment Despite that changes to the article itself the subject still fails all the same criteria he did on the 21st. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I Play Too[edit]

Can I Play Too (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show it's notability. A former NFL player wrote this book, but that doesn't make the book notable. It has to be notable by itself. Schuym1 (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12. Wanting to have a discussion of the other non-merits of the article is not a sufficient reason to keep copyvio material around. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Axiomatic property theory[edit]

Axiomatic property theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I thought this was a maths topic but it has been classified as law. Essentially original research, user:Boyarkin seems to have copied their own web page. (But it would be dodging the issue to delete it as a copyvio.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Tagged as copyvio of property-theory-eng.narod.ru/ specifically.) — Athaenara ✉ 00:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to ^^^: The nominator knows this is a copyvio, but still wants to discuss this article here so that we have a firmer rationale - original research - for deleting it. Thus I have declined the speedy delete request. And yeah, delete as OR. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

01:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep and send to WP:CP seems a good idea. This is not definitively OR (there are references) and if the nominator is not prepared to delete on sight then the author should be given the opportunity to get a ticket. TerriersFan (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Ababadjani[edit]

Maya Ababadjani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only claim to notability seems to be a minor role in a film and she is not even mentioned in the cast. Also she fails WP:PORNBIO. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. The sources don't look as though they're reliable, and I can't find any reliable sources elsewhere, although it is difficult locating sources for foreign-language performers. Epbr123 (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete fails both WP:PORNBIO and WP:N in general. If she has more than a minor role in mainstream cinema and/or wins somesort of award than things change but, for now she doesn't meet the criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't read Danish, but if the death threats and physical attack on this Arab porn actress by religious extremists are really and truly sourced, it might establish notability. David in DC (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Danish celeb. --THFFF (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I agree that it should be kept, but I doubt this is a good reason. What about Asian celebs? You don't see people using that as an excuse to keep an article, if the chance comes that they come up in an AfD. Lady Galaxy 22:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - combination of her two mainstream film appearances (one of which has an article on English wikipedia) and the publicity from the attack. I can't find anything through Google's translation service that counts as a reliable source though. Tabercil (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --NZQRC (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep one of the only arab pornstars very notable and non trivial. 71.245.211.91 (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC) — 71.245.211.91 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak keep. We have sufficent enough sources. We can find more.--Freewayguy What's up? 23:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The sources don't seem too substantial from what I can make out of the Danish. (Glad I didn't check those at work!) Zero gnews hits in English. I'll gladly change to keep if the death threats get documented.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Tabercil. --Qwerty1234 (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Tabercil. Lady Galaxy 22:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Have Tourettes[edit]

I Have Tourettes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fails WP:CRYSTAL as there is no confirmed tracklisting. There is no other information released about this album except a statement on Tila's official website which states the album will be released in December 2008 and its title. The little information provided in this article is already on the main article at Tila Tequila. Lady Galaxy 22:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until more sourced information can be added Ctjf83Talk 22:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The very little that is known about this album is all from Tequila herself and can be easily contained within her article. Movingboxes (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect back to Tila Tequila#Music career, where there is already a passing mention of the new album, until such time as it's release and/or decent references are found for it to pass WP:MUSIC#Albums.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 02:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above: fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. Cliff smith talk 04:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Tila Tequila. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, I'm not quite sure why, but I thought this article was probably speedily deleted. I just went and checked and it said the page was recreated just this morning and there is only one edit: the initial one. It looks like it was recreated by the same user, with the same content. Then I noticed that they just added the needed apostrophe to the title and they redirected it. Plus, they removed the tag I placed on the article. However, I readded it to the moved page. Just commenting here to let you all know. Lady Galaxy 19:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why that the page is gong to be deleted? The album is gonna release in October! I recreate the article because the title of the album was "I Have Tourette's" Not "I Have Tourettes". But i don't understand if the page to delete is "I Have Tourettes" or "I Have Tourette's. But if i do anything wrong, i apologize. pVip pVip's messages 21/08/2008 - 21:40 —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you become familiar with the guidelines at WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC. Currently, there are no reliable sources, not even a confirmed tracklisting. In order for an album to be on Wikipedia, it has to have reliable sources. Right now, there are no reliable sources and not even a confirmed tracklisting or official release date. I'm afraid this article is considered what we call crystal balling (again, see the links I provided above) and will have to be recreated at a later time when more information is available. Lady Galaxy 21:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oh yeah, the page is going to be recreated. But i put the confirmed tracks (one of them is not). pVipmsg —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're not actually confirmed in any way. I don't remember even Tila ever saying that she'd put them on her album, and I was a fan for a long time up until recently. This article has no sources whatsoever, and even if you were to put some... it'd all be from Tila herself. She could just be making it up, she's had promises of a debut album for many years now. (This is why I'm surprised she actually released the album name and the time it'd come out, so I think it will come through this time, but I'm not completely sure.) I hope you understand what I'm saying, however: please do not recreate this page until you have reliable sources other than Tila's website (and no, a mirror of Wikipedia doesn't work either)! Lady Galaxy 00:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? I think that the singles are confirmed tracks. pVip (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. It's still not good enough. Even Tila never confirmed them. And even if she did, you need more than just her as a source.
Obviously you've never read Wikipedia guidelines, because not everything can be in this encyclopedia... there's rules and restrictions...
I'm sorry, but if you don't understand what I'm saying... I cannot explain it to you any better. Read the above and below. Still don't get it? I'm not quite sure what to tell you. Lady Galaxy 18:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect. Can be its own article again when album is released. - McCart42 (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triptykon[edit]

Triptykon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not yet appear to exist as a band; hasn't published any music. Also, a good indication that it fails WP:BAND is the reference to "the band's official Myspace page".  Sandstein  22:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, whilst the band has yet to release anything, they do pass criterion 7 of WP:MUSIC: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply." They will of course automatically become notable the second they release anything as per this criterion, even if we don't think it is applicable now; I'd err on the side that it does, and leave the article as a stub until further information is available. Incidentally, the Myspace comment is inaccurate; Myspace is often the first place many bands place news items these days. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inhered notability isn't always convincing but in this case we are discussing a band formed by Thomas Gabriel Fischer, a very important character in the development of the many metal subgenres. Kameejl (Talk) 07:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect When they have done something they might be worth keeping. Until then the suggestion in criterion 7 of WP:MUSIC of a redirect should apply. Duffbeerforme (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Then it's best to add sources instead of deleting the article, don't you think? Cheers Kameejl (Talk) 15:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:V, it is those who want to retain content who must provide sources for it, not those who want to delete it.  Sandstein  15:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. While the arguments on keeping the article are somewhat compelling, concerns around verifiability, original research, trivia and undue weight remain. Many thanks, Gazimoff 14:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather and The Godfather Part II deleted scenes[edit]

The Godfather and The Godfather Part II deleted scenes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Potentially trivial list of information; lacks real-world context. Important deleted material with real-world context can be re-integrated into the production section of the films' articles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - Reintegrating this material into the parent articles would unbalance them, thus the best place for this stuff is in a seperate article. (It's a standard technique for articles which are too long to have sections moved into stand-alone articles, referenced from the main article. That's essentially what's happened here.) The necessary real-world context is provided in abundance by the parent articles, there's no need for it in this article, which deals with internal changes made in the films. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've notified the article's original uploader of this nomination, as well as the two other editors who contributed to it, including the editor who PRODed it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Trivial list, which lacks sources and real world context. I'm sure that most of these cuts are minor and of no real importance (e.g. "There's some short extra footage of Michael in the car arriving at the mall"), and anything of any true significance should be moved to the appropriate film article. PC78 (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fully agree with the nominator (likely obvious, since I PRODded the article). There isn't any encyclopedic value to this. The furthest I would be willing to go is merge, but the deleted material is of no consequence to the original outcome of the films to begin with. If there are small parts that are notable, they can indeed be re-integrated. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Ed Fitzgerald, there's too much here to re-integrate into the parent articles. These are two of the top movies of all time (ranked #2 at IMDB) so it is not surprising that a section like this would get spun off and merit its own article. --MPerel 00:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its fame is irrelevant to the site-wide content guidelines; as this content currently stands, it is not appropriate either within its own article or in the context of another one, for the reasons given in the AfD nom. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to The Godfather - what no deleted scenes form The Godfather Part III? --T-rex 00:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to their respective articles. The sections aren't too long that they would throw off the article, as has been suggested above. Yes, the movies are notable, but I don't think deleted scenes on their own are notable enough for a separate article. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 01:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- any useful content can be merged into the main articles for the two movies. And the title is so unwieldy, i doubt a redirect would be useful. 69.242.101.88 (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The comment above is only the sixth edit by this IP editor. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, the above comment was me, I must've been logged out when I added it. My vote remains the same. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for clearing that up. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is an acceptable breakout of interesting knowledge regarding clearly notable movies. It is, as Ed Fitzgerald says, standard practice to break out articles this way to prevent unbalancing the original article (or to keep the original article from becoming overly long). It may be wise to explicitly note the subsidiary nature of this article in the header, though RayAYang (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that argument is weakened by the fact that the material is not appropriate for the parent article either, regardless of the balance, because of said issues of triviality and lack of real-world context. Splitting this content off or merging it back as-is will not resolve any of the issues as it stands now. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have escalted your view from "potentially trivial" in your nomination, to fairly definitely trivial now.

It is certainly true that, in and of itself, each deletion noted in the article can be said to be trivial, but the article itself can in no way be said to be trivial as a whole. The notability and importance in cinematic history of the two films goes without saying, and the ways in which they were shaped is certainly significant. The article (which, I agree, should be be more definitively be labelled as subsidiary to the main articles) provides the data which define those changes. To provide an analysis of the deletions would be a clear violation of WP:OP, which is why they are presented as is.

To reiterate, the significance lies in the collective information, not in any one datum, and the notability is satisfied by the importance of that information in relation to the development of the films. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)It should also be noted that this is not simply stuff that ended up on the cutting room floor, for which it can be argued that the material might have been cut because it was inferior. In this case, when Coppola had the chance to expand the film (for the Saga and the Triology), he chose this material as being of importance in telling the story in a long-form situation. The "real-world" context is provided by the real-world fact that this stuff was chosen by Coppola to be part of the expanded film. As with all media objects, a third-party source is not required when the object itself authenticates the material. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you misunderstand "real world context" as we use it in our guidelines. It refers to the context written within the article that grounds the "in-universe" information. See WP:WAF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the context that's necessary is provided in the main articles, of which this article is subsidiary. The subsidiary article Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor doesn't deal at all with the causes of the attack, or the way the attack proceeded, or how it was responded to, all very important to the topic of "the results of the attack on Pearl Harbor." It doesn't because these are all dealt with in the main article Attack on Pearl Harbor. This is pretty much generally the case with sub-articles which are spun-off from large articles to reduce overhead or avoid problems of unbalancing the main article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With fiction articles, it's different. The Pearl Harbor example is moot, because all that is being discussed actually happened. Fictional subjects, however, have to be firmly grounded - again - within the real-world context of the subject they're discussing. Our guidelines on writing about fiction clearly explain this. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, guess I'll try once more to put my point across, then give it up for lost: The context you require exists in the main articles that this article is subsidiary to. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't be civil, then I'd advise giving up. Because if you can't even be bothered to establish anything within a subsidiary article, that should be a red alert that there either isn't notable content, or there isn't notable enough amounts to merit splitting. Rattling off a list of deleted scenes, with no real-world context as to their deletion, what it implied, or how the deleted scenes were received critically upon their presentation...well, that's basically a list of indiscriminate information (related to an otherwise notable topic). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You see something uncivil here? I think not. You ask for real-world context for the article, and I'm trying to tell you that the main article establishes the requested real-world context. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 09:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the topic is possibly notable does not mean that any content associated with it will be; at the moment this is a collection of indiscriminate information. Some of it may in fact be salvagable if editors are willing and able to significantly overhaul it, but if the issues raised are not, articles which blatantly fail encyclopedic standards are fully justified in being deleted. Were these minor problems, I assure you this would not have been AfD'd by me. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you are assuming the outcome of this AfD in advance. That, and only that, will determine whether the article is "encyclopedic" or not. If the consensus here is "keep" and the AfD is closed that way, then the article is encyclopedic, whether or not it fulfills whatever definition of the word you are comfortable with. This being the case, it might be best for both of us to dispense with reiterations of positions that are apparently firmly in opposition, and allow the community to do its work. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective-merge back or delete Trivial list that can't even answer "so what?"; there is no apparant relevance. That some scenes were cut may be important and should be mentioned, but this doesn't require a separate article. If and only if two or three medium-sized paragraphs are added to demonstrate that real-world importance or relevance exists (production, design, reasons for scene deletion, reception), I'd reconsider my !vote. – sgeureka t•c 06:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's simply a trivial list. People might find it "useful" or "interesting" but that certainly doesn't make it more encyclopedic. Also: it shouldn't be merged back. Look at just about any movie article: there isn't lists of deleted scenes, because it's just trivia. If there is a Godfather Wiki, transwiki it there. If not, perhaps a general movie Wiki will have a need for this type of information. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is unreferenced trivia and doesn't meet WP:V or WP:TRIVA. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not so much because it's trivial (although it is) but for lack of verifiability. The article has no sources, and was clearly compiled by wikipedians with access to the primary sources (that is, copies of the original films and their subsequent releases) comparing them with one another. It's the definition of original research. AndyJones (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Observation is not "original research", observation is observation. The best and most authoritative sources of information about books, films, CDs, TV shows and other media artifacts are the artifacts themselves. It should not be necessary to find a secondary source to say something which you've just seen or heard or experienced for yourself directly from the primary source, since the artifact can always be consulted to confirm the observation. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to King Lear. It's on the fence between redirect/keep and delete, so I'm choosing redirect as the less restrictive option.  Sandstein  19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Lear (2009 film)[edit]

King Lear (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 04:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - there are significant sources for this film telegraph.co.uk and scotlandonsunday --T-rex 00:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having sources is not enough - neither of those states that filming has begun. Projects get cancelled at the last minute all of the time; hence the reason for WP:NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware of NFF, but do not feel that it applies in this case --T-rex 03:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Actually yes, having sources IS enough. Just because filming hasn't begun doesn't mean the film won't happen. You say "films get canceled all the time", but as of now, this one hasn't been. Saying that it "might" get canceled is crystalballing The article has plenty of sources, plus is starring three very notable actors. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 01:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And given the way the film industry works, I would argue the opposite - that blind faith that this will be made is crystalballing. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going on "blind faith", I'm going off of the sources that this article provides. According to the sources, the movie IS being made. According to you, it **might** not be. That's practically the definition of crystalballing. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 03:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the scotlandonsunday story as linked by T-rex above, "The director and producers of the movie, which is due to start filming in the spring, arrive in Scotland tomorrow [evidently August 11, since the story was put up on August 10] to examine potential locations." Cliff smith talk 04:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rwiggum, I would advise you to read, very carefully, the full text of WP:NFF. It goes into detail about why this guideline exists, and why high-profile releases are not exempt from it. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be squarely within the WP:NFF guideline. I don't see a reason to make an exception for this one. AndyJones (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to King Lear. I was strongly leaning toward siding with Rwiggum on this one...until I read the WP:NFF guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola is absolutely right; the guidelines explicitly say that "films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles", no matter how high-profile. This film has not commenced principal photography; ergo, it should not have its own article until it does. The film is mentioned under King Lear, and for now that's probably enough. --Smeazel (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFF. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NFF, and the way it is written is almost trying to justify keeping it with caveats. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFF. Cliff smith talk 17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to King Lear for now - redirecting rather than deleting will make it easier to revive the article once sources satisfying WP:NFF are found. -Malkinann (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:N trumps WP:NFF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Struck vote. Will study and return. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Not according to existing guidelines it doesn't. WP:NFF explicitly says that "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles....The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks." WP:FUTFILM says that "All film articles pertaining to future films must meet the future film requirements of the film notability guidelines." (Boldfacing in both cases as in the original article.) I don't see how it can get much clearer than that. If you want to argue that this particular film is a special case for some reason, you can try to do so, but the guidelines seem very explicit that WP:NFF applies regardless of any other notability criteria of the film in question. --Smeazel (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to King Lear. Forget the film... the article itself has notability because of content and context per Cinematica, 5/20/08, ContactMusic.com 6/26/08, Javno.com 6/30/08... and each day something more. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I agree with the redirection; that's certainly not forbidden by WP:FUTFILM, and in fact it's explicitly mentioned as an option, and this film is notable enough to warrant it. Amending my "delete" vote above to "redirect". --Smeazel (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFF. JJL (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kandahar film[edit]

Kandahar film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can show that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - the sources provided did little to indicate how the winery was more notable than the hundreds of other French wineries out there, and there was some issue with advertising concerns as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chateau Civrac[edit]

Chateau Civrac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page was created by the Chateau owner and has not been substantively edited by anyone else since. It is a minor winery in a minor Bordeaux appellation, not a significant or notable French wine. The article contains no direct references to assert notability - even in the external links list, there is only one link to any substantive mainstream coverage, a brief online feature piece in the Times. A notability tag was added a while ago and the page creator/winery owner was politely notified of issues with the article. Rather than respond to that, or make any effort to provide more sources for the notability of their product, they came back to article and removed the tag. And did so without logging in, presumably in order to conceal their identity as the owner of the product now they had been "outed". I've put further comments and links on the article talk page. This product simply does not warrant a page here - Wikipedia is not a commercial directory, and there are all sorts of policy issues here on top of WP:NOTABILITY, including WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:SOCK. --Nickhh (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: as I explained, only one of these represents anything close to substantive mainstream coverage. If you actually look at them or even try to open them, you would discover fairly quickly that the first is the Chateau's own website, while the second is a local information site which doesn't even appear to list the Chateau in its directory section. The third is - as mentioned - OK in itself, but one small online feature is hardly evidence of notability. The last two are merely articles which include notes on the wine (most wines will be tasted by reviewers at some point or other); furthermore the first of these two is to a subscription only site and the second link no longer works. Do people here actually look at or read anything in any detail before flying in with their opinion? --Nickhh (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This page was created by good faith, and is not a copyvio.--Freewayguy What's up? 23:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - The Times source is more than a simple wine review, and establishes notability of the winery and its owner. Hadashot Livkarim (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Lady Galaxy 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to gas giant.  Sandstein  18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super-Jupiter[edit]

Super-Jupiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The term "Super-Jupiter" as applying to a gas giant more massive than Jupiter is not in widespread use either within the scientific community or within the popular media. It is therefore unencyclopedic and should be deleted.J. Langton (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The one article cited did not use the expression. I was happy to learn something about them and am especially pleased to learn that "Super-Jupiter" is not a rap artist, as I thought when I first noticed the AfD. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the image description page is completely different from this article's image caption --T-rex 01:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Google agrees. MediaMob (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to gas giant, as it does have some usage. [9] [10] [11] [12] 70.51.10.38 (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm ambivalent; I see indications this isn't a complete open-and-shut case. We have a Category:Super-Jupiters, which rather strongly implies there are other Wikipedians who feel Super-Jupiters are encyclopaedic. Also, a few minutes on google does show up references to the term [13][14]. Those indications aren't sufficient to prevent deletion (they boil down to WP:WAX and sources I don't consider reliable) but they do imply it would be worth asking an expert. I'll tag the article for expert attention accordingly.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The category should be deleted, as being more massive than Jupiter is an arbitrary and non-defining characteristic. 70.51.10.38 (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to gas giant: it seems the extrasolar planets articles are dominated by a group of highly active editors who seem to insist on imposing categorisation systems on objects whose basic properties are for the most part totally unknown. Deleting this article would only serve to open the door for the next round of sci-fi style exoplanet categorisation systems when someone finds their favourite mass classification is missing. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to gas giant would probably be a good idea. I have no preference between redirection and deletion. J. Langton (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect—The term does get some use in the scientific literature, per 63 scholar ghits. But a redirect to gas giant should be sufficient.—RJH (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the sake of comparison: exoplanet gets 7500, "super-Earth" has close to 5000, "extrasolar planet" has 3000, etc. Not that I'm disagreeing, I just think that 63 scholar ghits should be put in perspective. J. Langton (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Looks to me like the consensus is redirect to gas giant. Anyone have objections to this? J. Langton (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in The Bill[edit]

List of deaths in The Bill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not notes:

Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work.

A "list of deaths", however, is automatically geared toward an in-universe treatment of the subject. This list is purely plot summary: it contains no reference to the real-world significance of a fictional work or a particular element of a work of fiction (such as a character, an episode, or a theme). Any sourced commentary regarding the deaths in The Bill belongs in articles about individual episodes or characters, in a list of episodes or characters, or in the main article.

There is a fairly consistent precedent for deletion of such lists (in fact, these are the only one of two remaining lists of fictional deaths; the other is a list for the Scream film series and is nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in the Scream trilogy). See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in the Scream trilogy[edit]

List of deaths in the Scream trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not notes:

Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner;discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work.

A "list of deaths", however, is automatically geared toward an in-universe treatment of the subject. This list is purely plot summary: it contains no reference to the real-world significance of a fictional work or a particular element of a work of fiction (such as a character, an episode, or a theme). Any sourced commentary regarding the deaths in the Scream trilogy belongs in the individual film article(s) or the list of characters.

There is a fairly consistent precedent for deletion of such lists (in fact, these are the only one of two remaining lists of fictional deaths; the other is a list for The Bill and is nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in The Bill). See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge/redirect to Suppertime. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Till the Wheels Fall off[edit]

Till the Wheels Fall off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I Got My (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)
Bus Stop Breezy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)

The article is a moldering of original research and future predictions. Plus it has not charted anywhere and therefore fails for notability of songs. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 21:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reasons I have added for deletion "Bus Stop Breezy" and "I Got My", which are both from the same album Suppertime. Note that none of these songs can be merged into the album's article since the articles of all these songs have no sources. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 21:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy-deleted as copyvio. In the DRV discussion about the speedy-deletion, there was confirmation that even this new version was still a copyvio. The contributor has asserted that he can get copyright release. The page has been speedy-deleted pending confirmation of the release.

Note: This closure does not address the notability concern raised in the nomination below. If copyright release is confirmed and the page restored, this page may still require investigation and discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge instinct[edit]

Knowledge instinct (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deleted once as copyvio, this version is not a copyvio but the term appears to beb in strictly limited use. Of the small number of google hits and google scholar hits for the quoted term, most are accidental matches (e.g. knowledge, instinct) and the balance all seem to be traceable to Perlovsky. Perhaps a merge or redirect if the term can be proven to be significantly linked with Perlovsky? Guy (Help!) 20:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect or merge. The parent article has a section entitled "Campus move to Florida" that is much longer than this article, so I don't see what would need to be merged, but if you think otherwise, go forth and merge from the history.  Sandstein  18:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy at Ave Maria School of Law[edit]

Controversy at Ave Maria School of Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was hotly contested some time ago when the debate about the potential move of the Ave Maria School of Law to Florida was being fought on and around the campus. At that time, I managed to beat a reasonably neutral description of the issue out of admittedly marginal material and cooled things off. Since then, though, the move has been approved, there's no real controversy to be discussed anymore, and I think this has slipped into the realm of WP:NOT#NEWS. It's not a relevant issue anymore, so I feel this article is not really necessary any longer. (As do the contributors who keep deleting stuff and changing it to their preferences.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP is not news, as the nom said. The incident could be covered in one or two sentences in the main article on the school. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Ave Maria School of Law. Seems worth a paragraph in the parent article. TerriersFan (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Ave Maria School of Law. There seems to be no justifcation for deleting the content from Wikipedia, but little reason at this point to keep it a standalone article. A merge will place the information in context of the school. Alansohn (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect - per other users. Information is somewhat notable as a subsection, but not worthy of a standalone article. matt91486 (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getmyhomesvalue.com[edit]

Getmyhomesvalue.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dubious notability. The sources are borderline, at best, or incidental. G-news doesn't show anything better out there either. 9Nak (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on previous version
  • Strong Delete It's been deleted several times also, put a block for the article --Numyht (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Eeek, that is quite a spammy article -- and quite a history, too. By all means, salt it...and add some oregano, thyme, perhaps a dash of Tabasco sauce for some flavour. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spammy article? I argue strongly against that. Please review my history. As a resident of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, I find what this company has been able to accomplish - being named one of the top 500 fastest growing companies in the US without the benefit of venture capital - to be quite a feat. Especially when other major online companies are not able to become profitable without venture capital. Please reconsider. JonathanBentz (talk)

  • Delete, insufficient notability from reliable sources, reads like an ad. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinion - while I don't profess to be the world's best online encyclopedia writer - this article does not read like an ad. Maybe this one - Zillow.com, but not Getmyhomesvalue.com. Have to disagree with Nawlin. JonathanBentz (talk)

  • Delete. I dispute Nawlin's assertion that it reads like an add, but I agree fully that it lacks in demonstrated notability and reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. All sources seem of dubious notability, or generated by the article's subjects in some way. Even this inc.com reference doesn't really cut it as a reliable source. Also vote to salt. justinfr (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment. You're right, I spoke hastily. Inc comment withdrawn. justinfr (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to keep. I've done a major rewrite of the article that I think substantially improves things. The recent growth and coverage, in my opinion, definitely makes them notable. As long as we can keep the article not reading like an advert... justinfr (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inc. doesn't cut it as a reliable source? Then why are they considered a notable magazine... notable enough to be listed in your online encyclopedia. JonathanBentz (talk)

  • Comment Here's the magazine list, and maybe you can scroll through the pages and tell us where you rank on it. I have a feeling that being the 3,782nd fastest growing company in the U.S. probably won't be considered that notable. Mandsford (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GetMyHomesValue.com has received word from Inc. that they will be in the Top 500 of the 2008 list. This list will be released on Wednesday, August 20. Projections done by GetMyHomesValue.com place themselves in the top 200 - which would place them in the top 4% of the fastest growing co's in the nation. While not #1... being in the top 4% is certainly more notable than being no. 3,782. JonathanBentz (talk)

  • Comment. Please refer to WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. Until it has actually occurred and has been published, it shouldn't be the subject of an article. Also, if you have the inside scoop on this, please also read WP:COI. justinfr (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to apply the crystal ball theory or predict. As I've already stated by creating this entry, I believe this company has established itself as notable enough to be listed. While the Inc. announcement for 2008 hasn't been made, would GetMyHomesValue.com making the top 5% of Inc.'s list of fastest growing companies give it enough notability in the eyes of editors to avoid deletion? I understand the idea of not publishing rumor or speculation, and as you can see on the GetMyHomesValue.com entry, there is no rumor or speculation about their Inc. magazine ranking. But, it seems to me that the personal life section of every celebrity Wiki (for example, see Jennifer Aniston) likely has some rumored information included. Regardless of notoriety, seems like a conflict here. JonathanBentz (talk)

  • Delete unless there is some really reliable good third-party evidence for its importance, preferably in a financial sense. The alexa rank quoted seem very low indeed for a successful company of this sort. If that';s the best even they can say for themselves, it's not yet notable--and in my view, very close to a speedy G11 as advertising. DGG (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oooohhh, tomorrow (August 20) is the big day. Did getmyhomesdotcom make it into the top 200? Again, I'm pretty sure it's already mentioned in the magazine list, but drum roll anyway. Mandsford (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand some editors feel the reference list didn't establish Getmyhomesvalue.com's notability, but those have now been updated. Also, although Mandsford was convinced that GetMyHomesValue.com was on the 2007 list (they weren't), they are on the 500 list for 2008. 785% growth for a company with no startup venture capital over a four-year period is pretty notable, is it not? JonathanBentz (talk)

  • Comment. I'm convinced. I made some substantial changes to the article in anticipation of a keep decision. justinfr (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In looking at the references I certainly would consider them to be reliable. I vote to include. Davidalanco (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shereth 20:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - due to a fairly last-minute rewrite of this article it is being relisted to get a better consensus on the current status of the article. The text of the discussion up to this point has been hidden for readability, but ought not be discounted outright by the closing administrator. Shereth 20:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - rewrite improved the style, but still leaves a topic lacking in substance. The article is still nn spam --T-rex 01:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The references consist of 1. The Inc mention. 2. A piece that is actually about the subject's corporate parent with a small mention of the subject 3. A directory listing devoid of any evidence that getting the listing requires any notability. 4. A link to the corporate parent's website and 5. An award from a locally based business paper. The question is does that count as being the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Inc counts for something, although I cannot imagine that there is any precedent that all Inc 500 companies are notable. Perhaps if Inc had actually written an article about the subject... The Central Penn Business Journal counts for something although the criteria for this award are unclear. The article's claim to notability that the firm required no venture capital is meaningless without context. Is there any evidence that this is one of X number of companies that achieved $3 MM in revenue without venture capital financing? Its not quite cutting it. The company's growth is admirable, but being admirable isn;t notable. You have to demonstrate that enough people cared abough about your success to write about it. I won't call it spam, although its one of the more blatant conflict of interest cases I have ever seen. Montco (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insufficient notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finders Keepers (casual game)[edit]

Finders Keepers (casual game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable video game with no non-trivial media coverage. Fails WP:NOTE. Created and all content by a WP:SPA. Precious Roy (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn flash game --T-rex 01:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass the notability hurdle with only one in-depth reliable source, which is the Gamezebo review in the external links. Despite apparently being popular, the game has failed to attract attention from reviewers, another full-sized review would be needed, none coming up in a search. Someoneanother 01:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources indicates that this game is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known, easily obtainable, popular game, review hunt hampered by very common name. "Break all rules" Robina Fox (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - we have at least some source for now. Though this article may not be notable enoguh we can still improve it.--Freewayguy What's up? 00:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What source is that? The reference given doesn't even show what it claims to show. Precious Roy (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Press releases are not sufficient to establish notability. The Gamezebo source is not verifiable per WP:V. MuZemike (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as notability has been confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi hunter[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nazi hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nazi hunter: one who hunts nazis. Basically nothing here that is not obvious from nazi + hunter. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic. Nom's characterization of the article is a little unfair. While lacking, it's more than a dicdef. --Elliskev 19:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oversimplified characterization of the article. I agree with Elliskev that the article is lacking, but it's a notable topic worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Possible merge target: Pursuit of Nazi collaborators. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Nazi-hunters are certainly notable and historically important people. I wish there was a more dignified name for them, but can't think of one off-hand. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the common term for people who track down Nazis and tons could be written on them. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article could be expanded and there is plenty of material that can be used to do so. --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: article requires cleanup and could benefit from additional sources. ColdmachineTalk 19:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a notable topic. I am not 100% sure, but I believe it was Simon Wiesenthal who came up with this term, I will try look for sources about that. Also, It is common to refer people who track down Nazis who fled prosecution as Nazi Hunters. The BBC referred Wiesenthal as a Nazi Hunter [15], and the BBC most recently referred to Efraim Zuroff, the man who is looking for fugitive Nazi Aribert Heim in the Patagonia, as a Nazi Hunter [16]. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Astley[edit]

Pat Astley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet WP:PORNBIO and the article is badly sourced. Selaco208 (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep..  Sandstein  18:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bank Identification Numbers[edit]

List of Bank Identification Numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The whole article is full of unverified original research--people add one or two cards at a time, it seems, with no sources. This makes me believe they look at their own credit card(s), see them not listed, then list them themselves. This article is useful, but largely unverifiable. Sydius (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list can be useful to organizations who wish to know from which bank a card has been issued as a part of fraud prevention (IE, if the card was issued by a bank in the United States, but the IP address's country is thought to be Russia, it might be a case of fraud). --Sydius (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure... but be honest, if you were looking for that information would you look in an encyclopedia? ;-) -- JediLofty UserTalk 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, actually, it's how I found it--I wanted exactly what this list could provide. I can't trust it without sources, though; not to mention, it's a bit messy and I do agree that it is out of place in encyclopedia. My primary concern, though, is all the original research/lack of sources. --Sydius (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is it's useful isn't a valid criteria for inclusion without reliable sources. -- JediLofty UserTalk 10:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A source was added, http://www.iinvestigate.net/secure/creditcard.shtml, but I don't think this is a reliable source. --Sydius (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lists are bad enough, but a list of numbers seems especially out of place in an encyclopedia. There must be some other website that provides this information. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:NOTE, WP:NPOV, WP:V. The argument to keep it is that this information does not appear to be compliled by a more authorative source or otherwise readily accessible. The recently added citation is a partial replacement at best. Neither my bank or VISA provide a similar list. This information constitutes a valuable fraud prevention tool, allowing a merchant to identify which bank needs to be contacted for timely transaction inquiries.
    The information is verifiable (WP:V) either on the bank's website or by phoning the bank directly. The information is neutral (WP:NPOV). And it passes (teniously) WP:NOTE. The article would be stronger and more authoritative if sources were cited. But it's positive utility argues that we should keep it unless a more authoritative source can replace it or significant harm can be argued. A disclaimer regarding citations continues to be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iredato (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we can provide good citations, though, I think it fails to meet the requirements for a Wikipedia article, no matter how useful (and I agree that it is invaluable) it may be. Perhaps it would be more appropriately listed someplace else, with a link at the bottom of the credit card number page. --Sydius (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A link at the bottom of the credit card number page would be a reasonable alternative if this article is voted to not meet Wikipedia standards. -- iredato
  • Delete subject fails our notability criteria. not to mention that it isn't remotely an encyclopedic subject. Information isn't remotely cited to reliable 3rd party sources (or any at all for that matter). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Thinking that a list of numbers are "out of place in an encyclopedia" is incorrect. See List of prime numbers. I feel that the "An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers" portion of WP:ITSUSEFUL is satisfied enough to keep it around. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 11:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS prime numbers are at least marginally notable whereas this list has no such claim. Prime numbers will always and forever be the same. The numbers on this list could/probably have/and probably will again change. Information is already suitably covered in an encyclopedic manner here. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prime numbers would be notable to some, as would this list of numbers. Anyone more connected to banking than to Pure Math would consider the List of Primes marginally notable (WP:WHOCARES). Where are you getting the information that these numbers "could/probably have/and probably will again change"? I would take a great interest in why my bank would be changing any of my numbers. Please read the sentence that preceeds the chart of numbers on the page you mention. It is not a complete listing. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't your numbers it's a reference number. I'm guessing that there is a limited supply of 6 digit numbers in the world (and that when this thing first came into effect it was primarily the first 4 that were important and that as the banking world evolved (and continues to evolve) that reference numbers and style of references will continue to evolve along with them.Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unfortunately despite that this is a very useful list, it fails WP:NOR, WP:LC, and various other guidelines, policies, and essays. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful list that has yet to be fully sourced. To think that this information is not verifyable would say the banking system operates on an ad hoc basis--not likely. I personally don't know how accurate this data is, but I would bet my house its verifiable.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But is it verifiable from sources we can list? Sure, you can call the banks, but that'd be original research. I've been searching for reliable sources, but have had great difficulty in finding any (I searched my own bank web site as well as several others and found nothing). Not only that, but these are not mentioned in any reliable third-party source (IE, not the banks themselves) that I can find, disqualifying them for notability. --Sydius (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list is uncontroversial and passes WP:SPS, unless the cards are counterfeit their numbers are published/issued by the banks. Each card is a reliable source for its BIN number. This list ultimately is a trade secret of the American Bankers Association since they issue the numbers and for security through obscurity, don't publish the list to the public (ISO_7812#Issuer_Identifier_Number). WP is WP:NOTCENSORED, so there should be no problems documenting a trade secret or something confidential. I also say, even with the uncompletability of the list, this list does serve a security purpose (what cards are from what countries, what brands, debit/credit/prepaid/low credit limit) per User:Iredato's comment, so this is an application of WP:IAR. Looking at the edit history of this list, its amazing what WP system/community can do. There are anon editors with IP lookups of financial companies User_talk:216.95.236.3, exactly what this list needs. If there are concerns about sources from anon editors, put a wikitext comment at the top of each section to remind editors to source their entires. Uploading an censored image of the card and putting a link to it in a footnote is another possibility (webcite would be better though).Patcat88 (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it meets the exception discussed in WP:SPS. Care to elaborate? --Sydius (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - the copyvio issues and WP:GAMEGUIDE concerns are quite valid. Recreation OK, as long as it's written independently and not a copy-and-paste. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moshi Monsters[edit]

Moshi Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Article does not any verifiable, third-party sources that can establish why this game may be notable. In addition, article borders on advertising/spam but not blatant enough in nature to warrant speedy deletion per G11. MuZemike (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no sources. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep I added a reliable source (Computeractive) and a few other sources are available. But being a new concept it may still fail WP:N The new sources are (just) enough to show WP:N. Oh and rewrite to remove the WP:GAMEGUIDE violation. --triwbe (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep It seems to comply with Video Game article guidelines It needs sources, more wikifying, and to show why it passes WP:N, but being a recent video game, I say give it a chance at least for now. Meisfunny Gab 18:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a copy-vio of a game guide, without more reliable sources, it warrants G11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numyht (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you know what guide it is, and can you provide a link? If there is a copyvio (my guess that it wouldn't), then this would meet G12 (copyright infringement). MuZemike (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but it looks ripped from the help page --Numyht (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does seem that, from comparing the article with the FAQ page of the Moshi Monsters website here, portions of the article were copy-and-pasted from the website which is a copyright of Mind Candy, Ltd.. Hence, I will tag the article as a potential copyvio and will report this to WP:CV. And if it is found that the article happens to be was created/edited by the copyright holder, then he/she will have inadvertently admitted to blatant advertising. MuZemike (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The game has been subject to a three-part 'atlas' overview on Worlds in Motion, part of the Game Developer/Gamasutra stable: [17] [18] [19]. There's a few pieces on Massively, including an interview. There's something of a stink regarding the moblie phone 'thing' on the Guardian here, it's also featured in a podcast from the Guardian (lost the link), there's a piece on Tech Crunch about the fledgling business. The only reason we have such trouble covering MMOs is that nothing remotely reliable has acknowledged their existence for years, now that gaming publications have finally woken up and started covering them we'll hopefully be able to have more MMO articles in better shape. Someoneanother 02:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is just a black tag, and no contents. I would see it as delete.--Freewayguy What's up? 23:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can read the content if you click on the edit button. The {{copyvio}} replaces all the content on the page with the tag, but the content is kept and placed under hidden quotes, which you will see when you click to edit. MuZemike (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and keep Delete, without prejudice to a future article As per someone another. There are reliable third-party references here that will allow this article to be written without violating copyright or WP:SPAM guidelines. But there's not much in the current article that can be salvaged. Randomran (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this WP:GAMEGUIDE without prejudice to a future article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I might have mentioned this before shortly, but we could also speedily delete the article under G12 (blatant copyright infringement) with no prejudice toward recreation. Most people seem to agree that a complete rewrite is necessary, and, while not a popular route to go, can get the ball rolling on a better rewrite of this article. However, I understand that it might be considered gaming the system, so it might be better to keep in that sense and let the copyvio problem work itself out. MuZemike (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. - Bobet 17:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanair Flight JK 5022[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Spanair Flight JK 5022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't know why people here have never heard of Wikinews, why do we even have these separate Wiki projects at all? WP:Notability WP:Crystal Ball Notability is not Temporary. I can name dozens of "air disasters" in the U.S. in the past year with more deaths, they don't get Wiki pages. The only difference was they were not on CNN's front page. .:davumaya:. 16:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Subject is presumed notable by receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The onus is on the nom to prove non-notability, not just assert it. --Elliskev 16:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At least 45 deaths is notable to me. And I don't recall any air disasters of comparable magnitude in the United States from the past year. And if there were, I'd argue they should be on here. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Notability is as you say not temporary. This incident is the subject of multiple independent sources, the general requirement for notability. Whether other air accidents have articles is not really a good indicator as to whether this article should be deleted. This article should complement the Wikinews article, not replace it. Unless the nominator can provide any further explanation as to why this should be deleted in reference to our guidelines and policies then I suggest this is speedily closed as keep, I see little possibility of it being deleted and it seems unfortunate that the article is tagged for deletion whilst so many will be working to develop it. Adambro (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- A lot of people died on this flight, so temporary notability is not an issue here. Many flight crash articles exist on Wikipedia. If this is deleted, they all will have to go. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Recent AfDs on disasters the non has said there were no deaths. [20][21] Now we have a nom saying there were not enough deaths. What's the death inclusion threshold? (That was a satirical question.) This was the subject of multiple secondary sources and there is absolutely no crystal-balling to say there will be very heavy investigation and documentation as disasters of this magnitude require it by both Spanish an EEC law. --Oakshade (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball speedy keep We have articles on breaking news stories all the time, numerous articles on previous accidents involving aircraft, notability is not an issue given widespread worldwide news coverage, crystal ball doesn't apply either because event already happened (even though information is forthcoming), and I can't think of any air disasters in the US in the past year with 172 deaths. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Opinions vary about the significance of the sources found, but it is safe to say that it is not possible to write an encyclopaedic article complying with WP:NPOV and WP:V using the available sources. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JP Turner & Company[edit]

AfDs for this article:
JP Turner & Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete for non-notability. Google search only returned the company website as its top-10 hits (This company's page on Wikipedia was also on the top-10 hits). Cuil search returned even less hits. (UTC) Arbiteroftruth (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article was created by a single purpose account, and most of the edits have been made by SPAs, including J.P. Turner Official (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There is a single link at the bottom to an independent source (businessweek.com), but it is their directory of all companies, and therefore not significant coverage. Thus, no SIGNIFICANT coverage in independent sources, which is what the relevant notability guideline requires. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have found three websites, which can be considered reliable and independent of JP Turner, in which JP Turner is the subject, and where it is receiving non-trivial coverage: [22], [23], and [24]. It may be argued that these three websites mean that the article on JP Turner & Company meets WP:N. However, can the article be kept on the basis of three judicial websites describing criminal actions by the company? I am not sure, so I would like to know what other people think. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Presuming no more reliable source are found, and I have not been able to find anymore, I believe the article would be a serious breach of WP:NPOV if it was left up. This is because it could only use the three sources I have cited, which would mean the article is mostly describing the criminal actions of the company, and that means it would not be a neutral article. Without any more reliable sources, that WP:NPOV problem would not be solved. As a result, until more reliable sources can be found to balance the judicial websites, I recommend that the article does not exist. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment Not to split semantic hairs, but I think there is a difference between non-trivial and significant, and I don't think any of the 3 meet the "significant" standard. "2" and "3" are both press releases, which are not secondary sources. So no, I don't think an article can be kept on this basis (esp. since no newspaper appears to have thought it significant enough to do any secondary reporting on the judicial actions). And I wouldn't use the word "criminal." UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep providing that the sources given above are incorporated. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Jessi1989. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the 3 cites given are pro-forma state web links from New Jersey, still got good enough. Bearian (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WITHDRAWN Toddst1 (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minister of Everything[edit]

Minister of Everything (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:OR essay. I have been unable to find any references to support such role. Appears to be WP:NN neologism. Failed prod after sole-author objected. Toddst1 (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." I fail to see how I have not done this, and as for notablity, again, I feel it meets that criteria as it is a commonly used phrase, and as the links show, used around the world, and the article explains the expression. If it is not notable on the grounds of being a "neologism" (and considering the phrase was in use at the time of CD Howe, I'm fairly certainly 60 years old hardly counts as new) why not delete every political neologism, particularly ones that are in far less day to day use then Minister of everything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamNorman (talk • contribs) 16:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - at first I thought it was exactly as the nominator described, then I got to the bottom of the article, and started checking the references. Times Magazine, BBC, etc. are all using this exact term to describe these men. I believe that the article can use some cleanup, especially in the opening paragraphs, but the information is verifiable, and does appear notable. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm surprised to say, the article appears to be well cited, and the citations appear to check out as reporting as an independent secondary source that the people listed have been described as a "minister of everything". This is the criteria for neologism notability as I understand it, so I have no problem with it. -Verdatum (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep well-sourced. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Pickle[edit]

Teddy Pickle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think this qualifies as a blatant hoax, but the article is as far as I can tell unverifiable and does not meet notability standards. Very few hits on google, most to Wikipedia or Myspace. Nothing on IMDb for the person or his film. No google hits for "Teddy Pickle" + "Pie Man". No evidence of any award nominations as claimed. Article is already userfied at User:Teddypickle. BelovedFreak 15:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and protect from recreation.  Sandstein  19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CRE Loaded[edit]

AfDs for this article:
CRE Loaded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreated by a single purpose account after having been deleted twice before. The concerns which lead to the previous deletions also apply to the new version, in fact I am able to quote myself from the previous deletion discussion:

...the text is written like advertising, eschewing hard facts (like the number of users/buyers/downloads of the software, who owns the company, numbers on revenue, profits, employees) in favour of fuzzy marketing language. The product might be notable or not, but until somebody writes a neutral article based on reliable independent sources giving clear indications of notability, the article should better be deleted. The product is already mentioned at osCommerce. Regards, High on a tree 08:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The advertising character of the text is clearly visible in how it addresses the reader - as a potential customer, not as the reader of an encyclopedia:

Add-On Systems introduce entire new frameworks into your site and can themselves support additional Add-On Modules. Add-On Modules enhance the capabilities of your CRE Loaded store with these Add-On Modules.

With regard to the general notability guideline, the article contains zero third-party references, but no less than 12 links to web sites by or associated with the company.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If, as you suggest, this version is substantially the same as that which existed previously, then speedy delete per CSD G4. Might also want to consider salting as this is the third time the article has been created. In any case delete per the apparent lack of reliable third-party sources. Gr1st (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Looks awfully a lot like an advertisement. Themfromspace (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is pathetic. Please delete. Salt it hard. Google has ranked the article already as if it had product information. I am a fairly established wikipedian, and I would offer to start a stub article for it in my non-existent spare time, and to take it under my wing, but there would be the obvious problem of the people who keep creating this advertisement would probably find a way to sneak the junk back in. And I hate that sort of thing. I think it should be deleted for a long time until CRE is more notable and realizes that this type of article is not worth a dime. By the way, what is the process for a salted article? How long would it be? I would hope that it could be salted 3 to 6 months or something substantial, except of course I would think that eventually their notability would demand something. No need to be Cutting off the nose to spite the face -- meaning that someone might find a CRE Loaded article useful if a good one could be written! I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've had a go at cleaning up the article and finding the sources. It now reads less like an advert but my research leaves me unconvinced that this software is actually notable. if someone can find reliable sources, let me know on my talkpage. --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I have a chance to try and clean up this article and offer some better sources? I had no idea it had been up for deletion twice before. I thought information about the company behind the product was wanted? If so why was it removed and if not, what is? --Smheard 12:43, 23 August 2008


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete (G3 - Vandalism) by User:Jimfbleak Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle shark[edit]

Eagle shark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Most likely a hoax, can not find in fishbase or ITIS which is claimed to have the species listed, since the species supposedly was discovered in 1958 you would expect some hits in google, no matching hits on James Lyle either. Could probably be deleted under G3 but will put up here for some further investigation. If deleted the image [25] should also be deleted. Article and image is created by different users and different days, elaborated hoax. --Stefan talk 14:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the nachos is a good hint! --Stefan talk 15:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax. Nothing on Google or Scholar either (or in relevant WP articles like Carcharhinidae and requiem shark). Article and image created by "different" users but on the same day, 3 August, and neither has any other edits. JohnCD (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. The ill-formed binomial name (Carcharhinus Aquila) is another tip-off this wasn't based on any reputable source. Hqb (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I missed that one, I have issues with Latin names :-) --Stefan talk 15:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I know a lot about sharks, especially the strange ones, and I've never heard of this. Obvious hoax. --LordSunday 15:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax, albeit a well-crafted one! -- JediLofty UserTalk 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't appear on IUCN Red List search either, which article claims its on -Hunting dog (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. If one worked at it, the range map will likely prove to be copied from that for some other species. Stan (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Wrong (Ben Joyce Album)[edit]

Your Wrong (Ben Joyce Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Future album by non-notable artist, no independent sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. Hqb (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Also, co-nominating for the same reasons as above:[reply]

Personal (Ben Joyce Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hqb (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC) And another one, same as the others:[reply]

Proofed You Wrong (Ben Joyce Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hqb (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Pegasus «C¦T» 16:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chanker van Livegood[edit]

Chanker van Livegood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This claims to be about a fictional Australian rules football player created by Kosta. I can't find any evidence of either a real or ficticious player by this name or a commedian called Kosta. It appears to be a long-standing hoax. Grahame (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE (football is not an amateur sport, so that section does not apply). пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Griffiths[edit]

Rhys Griffiths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted by PROD. Footballer fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully professional league/competition. --Jimbo[online] 12:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete unless the Welsh Premier thing is high enough according to the "experts" it's just another speculative article which fails our policies/guidelines for notability and verifiability (both of which are required for inclusion). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep — The individual in question clearly exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Kurt and nom. DCEdwards1966 18:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question The article states that the subject plays for Llanelli A.F.C. which is a club in the Welsh Premier League. Is the Welsh Premier League not a fully professional league? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. "The individual in question clearly exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber" That has to be one of the most senseless things I have ever heard. Based on that there would be 6 Billion biographies on Wikipedia. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And there's no source for most of those 6 billion (actually more like 106 billion) articles. Over 99 percent of them would have no information on the person at all. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 01:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the Welsh Premier League seems to be at the highest level of amateur football. See the article on it. Kurt, your voting "Keep. The individual in question clearly exists; nothing else matters." on every AfD on a person is rather disruptive, and the closing admins probably ignore it. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 01:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Davis (actor)[edit]

Evan Davis (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD contested by WP:SOCK of subject ... also WP:COI as Retrojew89 (talk · contribs), Evan2001 (talk · contribs), and GoldenMonkey78 (talk · contribs) appear to be sock/meatpuppets of the same user, editing this article as well as 12 Minutes to Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Sofia Mendez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have done my best to make Evan Davis(actor) more of a biography instead of a resume. I have also changed one of the links. Hope this helps. I do not believe Evan Davis (actor) deserves to be deleted. He has more than enough facts to prove his existence and merit in the entertainment industry. I am not a sock puppet, I am trying to help out an acting friend that I know. I am not the same person and will give out my name if needed. Wikipedia asked the original author to re-edit the article, then he was unable to do so. I was not aware of a rule that forbids authors knowing each other. Thank you GoldenMonkey78 (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is in regards to Evan Davis(actor), 12 Minutes to Heaven, Sofia Mendez. I am not a sock muppet, I was asked to edit these pages for Evan Davis, since he was told by an administrator he could not do and refuse to be called a meat puppet. I a fellow artist and do not believe these people should have their pages deleted or the film, because of my mistake. This is my first time on wikipedia, I apologize. We are trying to give Wikipedia facts not promotion. This has been a misunderstanding. Everything written on these pages is true and there are links to the sources. Thank you GoldenMonkey78 (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


When I signed up for Wikipedia I should have read the rules in depth. I apologize for the conusion. I changes my account from Evan2001 because I did not like the name I chose. I thought I deleted it, I never meant to give the impression I had more than one account. GoldenMonkey78 is not a Sock puppet, this person does know me, but volunteered to edit my personal page. I would have ever posted on my own page had I known it was against the rules. I am simply an actor who is trying to post facts that I believe have artistic merit.Retrojew89 (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete regardless of the behaviour issues the subject fails our notability and verfiability guidelines. Though the article contains lots of "references" they are primary source, trivial, and/or non-reliable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before you delete at least tell me how I can give you notability and verfiability. I have seen this actor live on stage, watched their films and they do exist and will eventually end up on Wikipedia whether it's today or in the future. However, the references I posted are not trivial and are reliable, they are the same reliability as other well known or up and coming artists. GoldenMonkey78 (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Evan Davis (actor) has IMDB credit for an award winning film Thumb Pow, which does match Wikipedia's guildlines for notability. He may not have all his credits on there yet, but is a working commercial actor that will end up on Wikipedia eventually if not today. You say YouTube doesn't count, but that is his fan base and I supplied you with more than one video, once of which has people imitating his performance in a play. He is notable.GoldenMonkey78 (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my comments at your talkpage. I think you need to review the policies. Youtube, IMDB, and several others you are using at the moment do not constitute reliable sources, or comply to other policies and guidelines to which you have already been pointed. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no reliable sources. Just so you're aware, GoldenMonkey78, IMDb is not considered reliable at all, as almost anyone can contribute without having their facts checked (this synopsis of the upcoming Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen movie is pure fan-fiction, and has been there for months! -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an autobiography written solely by meatpuppets. Violates WP:COI and WP:OR. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a comment to User:Retrojew89, User:Evan2001, User:GoldenMonkey78... Let's put aside for the moment that you may all know each other and be editing to each other's benefit (meatpuppet) or might even be the same person (sockpuppet). Let's ignore that for just a moment. There is no specific rule that authors cannot know each other or write about each other, however WP:COI states that such relationships should be declared when making those edits BLP describes how every statement in a biography must be well sourced... and there are further guidelines on how these edits must be done. All that aside.... the crux of the entire matter which brought this "relationship" to light is simply that the Evan Davis article, the 12 Minutes to Heaven article, and the Sofia Mendez article do not show notability in a manner accepted by Wikipedia. You have been unable to show even a minor notabilty per Wiki policies and guidelines. The articles as presented to AfD will likely not survive for just that reason. The various puppet cases now are a different (though related) matter and may result in these usernames being either temporarily or pemamently blocked. The place for the Evan Davis article about himself would have been his personal user page. The place for the film's article as it was being developed would have been his user sandbox. You might think about moving them there while still able. No promise that they will survive there, but if you are not blocked, you'll have them in a workspce... and if you are blocked temporarily, they'll be waiting. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources, and no evidence of anything, even in the sources given, that would satisfy WP:N or WP:ENTERTAINER. The fact that the actor has one IMDB credit is completely non-notable; I have two IMDB credits myself (for feature films I've had supporting roles in)[26], and I'm under no delusions that I'm notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article! References to YouTube, FunnyOrDie, etc., likewise non-notable. Note to User:GoldenMonkey78: You may very well be right that he "will end up on Wikipedia eventually", but he's clearly nowhere near notable to be on Wikipedia now. Articles aren't added to Wikipedia about things that people anticipate may become notable in the future. --Smeazel (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per no evidence of any notability given by reliable sources. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per withdrawal of nomination with no one advocating deletion. Non-admin closure.Deor (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of atheists (surnames A to B)[edit]

List of atheists (surnames A to B) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Silly to introduce pages to list atheists by name; that's what categories are for. Mr. Vernon (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Lists are normal on WP, like them or not. And since there are probably 1 to 2 billion professed or real atheists in the world, breaking down the list into 10 or so parts seems like a reasonable thing to do. Northwestgnome (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Indeed, Mr Gnome. The chap is way too quick off the mark. It's not so silly if he'd checked the Talk page for the Lists of atheists first, where this was already agreed.
    It's the first one in the series designed to replace (most of, perhaps) the present Lists of atheists, divided by 'field known for', which has proved hopeless and confusing -- the more so since the (originally single) list had to be split due to size. I've been transfering (pretty bloody laboriously) all the entries into the table format in my user area; A to B was done so I thought it ought to 'go live'. Would it be better to do it all in my sandbox, then do it en masse? I don't really care, but this is meant to be to replace what's already in existence with something better, not something additional. Sheesh.
    And yeah, categories are fine too. Indeed, used properly, we could do away with just about all lists, eh? But categories do not offer the topic-specific additional information about the person that the list does -- stuff that's often so tangential as to be irrelevant for the person's main page, but relevant (and substantiated) in the context. Go take a look.
    Oolon (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / swipe: Heh. I just re-read Mr Vernon's opening comment. "Silly to [...] list atheists by name". Erm, I guess it would be hard to check a talk page, as I suggested, if one is oblivious about the existence of the pages it talks about. We've had a List of atheists for at least a year (probably much longer, but that's all I can vouch for), and I have personally doubled its length. Do feel free to scrap it, though, as long as you transfer all the information to each of the 850 people's individual entries first. What we've got here is celebatheists.com done to WP standards, with proper referencing and not just 'celebrities'. People seem to think it's a good idea. Oolon (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Oolon's point. Lists are everywhere, if we were to delete this one for such a reason there would be thousands more PROD. MattieTK 12:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment OK, these are all valid points. I withdraw my AfD. Do I have to wait for an admin to do this? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks Mr V, and I apologise for my 'swipe' (though the points in it remain valid I think). If you'd spent as long as I have transferring just those 117 into the table, you might be a bit miffed too! (Feel free to help with the remaining 86% still to do :-p :-D ) Cheers, Simon (Oolon) Oolon (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I just might do that :-) No worries, I completely understand. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum Opus (album)[edit]

Magnum Opus (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested Prod. Two mutually conflicting articles by same author. Both fail WP:V and WP:MUSIC. No WP:RS trace of albums or leaked tracks found.

I am also nominating the other article:

AdelleDEAD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is indistinguishable from a hoax. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Kuntar[edit]

Samir Kuntar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Typical case of WP:ONEEVENT.

  • Merge and redirect

There was no notability whatever prior to the event. I suggest merging this and the Einat Haran article under Nasser Operation or Nahriya Terror Attck. WP policy in cases on "one man one event" to write about the event. On.Elpeleg (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Confused - AfD isn't the place to nominate things for merges. "anonymous" nomination with an incomplete rationale doesn't really help things here. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Kuntar's notability does not arise from just one event. As a PLF member, he engaged in a number of murderous militant activities. His notability continues through his trial, negotiations, and ultimately, the 2008 Israel-Hezbollah prisoner swap. Furthermore, this subject has been covered extensively in a number of independent reliable sources. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. As observed by Nikshid, his notability is linked to multiple events, of which the Nasser Operation was just the first. This emerges from multiple papers and books.--Aldux (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article fully explains his notability, and is well sourced. SilkTork *YES! 01:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is very important that the world know what kind of person is being worshipped as a hero in the Arab world. Tell me who your heroes are and I'll tell you who you are.--Gilabrand (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nishkid64. Also, if this AfD has to do with the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einat Haran, please consider WP:POINT. -- Nudve (talk) 05:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clarify or merge and redirect to event: please read: User_talk:Sandstein scroll down to discussion concerning Einat Haran. It was agreed to have only biographical content in SamirKuntar and thereby it was suggested to open an event article where people involved would be redirected there. However in the middle of the discussion some confusion was created, because some admin decided on his own to delete the Einat Haran discussion and redirect it there, although he claims that it was "merged". No one wants it to be merged with Samir Kuntar, the whole issue around Samir Kuntar Nasser Operation and Einat Haran needs to be resolved in one way or another, without having any admin jumping the gun, before the other admins and editors come to some solution together.. and in this example the delete was taking place.. just as the opposing groups were near a final solution. Quite frustrating and confusing.On.Elpeleg (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, User:On.Elpeleg was the original poster of the AfD. Can we hereby consider the AfD as withdrawn? --Soman (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Sure, BUT lets get order around these 3 issues.On.Elpeleg (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 tensions in Ingushetia[edit]

2008 tensions in Ingushetia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT#NEWS. A search operation probably connected to militant activities, part of the Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2008). Not deserving an article TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete all relevant info into Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2008) Reads like a news article --Numyht (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Daddy[edit]

Flat Daddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. Flat Daddy is a registered trademark. This looks like an advert to me. MrMarmite (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being a trademark is not a valid reason for deletion is it ? Or I see many articles going down. Moreover there does not seem to be any monopoly over the use of the name : the term is a trademark by one company, another owns the flatdaddies.com, another sells http://flatdaddy.com ... Overall, posters are produced by at last a half-dozen companies. And indeed you can make one on your printer --Ofol (t) 01:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising and nonnotable. Themfromspace (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep concept is notable having been used in many articles, TV shows and it it properly documented see for exemple this (—Marguerite Kelly, "How a Dad Can Be in Two Places at Once," The Washington Post, September 8, 2006 - —Brian Macquarrie, "Flat-out guarding those on home front," The Age, September 1, 2006 - —"Flat Daddy fills in on the homefront," Associated Press, July 19, 2003) + concept had two interwikis already, showing some further possible developments --Ofol (t) 10:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
note also references quoted in fr.wp When Soldiers Go to War, Flat Daddies Hold Their Place at Home, Katie Zezima, New York Times, 30 septembre 2006 and in de.wp ZDF-Meldung über Flat Daddys Süddeutsche-Meldung über Flat Daddys --Ofol (t) 10:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or improve, or move to user space. maybe an article can be written, but I'm not convinced yet. As is, it comes off as a dictionary definition of a Neologism, or an invention of uncertain notability. -Verdatum (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable neologism, dictdef, etc which isn't remotely referenced to reliable 3rd party sources within the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
scientific reference does exist, like "At War in Iraq and Afghanistan: Children in US Military Families . Ambulatory Pediatrics , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , Pages 1 - 2 M . Chartrand , B . Siegel". And indeed flat daddies (and flat mommies) is considered a specific and to a certain extend novel way of coping with the prolonged absence of a family member and is a subject of controversial debates and studies. --Ofol (t) 01:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep reliable and verifiable sources covering the topic establish notability. Article was in need of expansion, not deletion. There are several dozen sources available in a Google News Archive search, almost all of which are specifically about the "Flat Daddy" concept, with many more available. I spent a few minutes and significantly expanded the article. Alansohn (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Kudos to Alansohn for improving the article and adding many citations of verifiable notability. Although the nomination for deletion was appropriate at the time, the article now clearly meets our standards. I'd encourage editors who opined to "delete" to take a second look and reconsider their opinion. - Boston (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I hate myself for voting to keep advertCruft, but it did merit mention in several newspapers. You could argue WP:NOTNEWS, but m'eh. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A reminder that it appears that the trademark was taken out to prevent profiteering, not to make money. While there may be firms making money on the deal, the firm noted in several articles has made most of them on a complimentary basis for the families of servicemembers. Alansohn (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Hamilton (academic)[edit]

Hugh Hamilton (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable Senior Lecturer in photography. Would appear to both fail WP:PROF as an academic and WP:CREATIVE as a photographer. nancy talk 07:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per CSD G5 by Iridescent. Non-admin closure. Gr1st (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Rodriguez (actor, rapper)[edit]

Troy Rodriguez (actor, rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Overall nonsense. Claims to be involved in a film ("The Sin") which doesn't appear to exist; upcoming albums to be released in late 2009 in violation of WP:CRYSTAL; and may be an attempt to recreate the previously deleted Troy M Rodriguez. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No sire Troy M Rodriguez is a hoex and is fake this person is real and The Sin Is set to release next year it has not yet been announced to the public and the official website is coming next week. --Screenwriter09 (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost certainly the now-banned Scriptwriter2009 talk. Upgrading to speedy delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok please remove anything ok I do not want to get banned remove everything if you want ok. I need to go to bed but please dont banned me ok lets see what you do when I logg on in the morning ok but please don't delete thank you if you dont delete. --Screenwriter09 (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and block user as obvious sock. JuJube (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This falls under the purview of CSD G5, we need not tolerate this for another 5-7 days. JBsupreme (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per CSD G5 by Iridescent. Non-admin closure. Gr1st (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sin (film)[edit]

The Sin (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Film is not listed in IMDB, no ghits on the film; likely hoax. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I submitted 2 weeks ago this film but I dont want to cause any problems ok so if you would like to remove go ahead ok thats your job. --Screenwriter09 (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Hoax article created by a previously banned user. Need I say more? There is a limit on the amount of "good faith" that can be assumed here. JBsupreme (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per CSD G5 by Iridescent. Non-admin closure. Gr1st (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three Rappers Of Years[edit]

Three Rappers Of Years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Album not scheduled to be released until October 2009. WP:CRYSTAL. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes Sir I Am The Manager Of Troy And This Is Official October Is A Non Rare Date But Troy Thought Of It So It's Official. --Screenwriter09 (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL as well. If this is ever released (and has reputable third party sources documenting the release) we can talk then. JBsupreme (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as creation of sockpuppet of banned user. JuJube (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted G5.  – iridescent 09:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troy discography[edit]

Troy discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL; albums are stated to be released in late 2009. Delete. Note this author has created a number of other, interrelated pages. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by Jimfbleak as having no meaningful, substantive content. (non-admin closure) Cunard (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliocopter[edit]

Bibliocopter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NEO - only two ghits. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, consensus is that the article can be improved so that it is more than just statistics and it is standard to have articles on these topics. Davewild (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005–06 A1 Grand Prix of Nations, United Arab Emirates[edit]

2005–06 A1 Grand Prix of Nations, United Arab Emirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article contains a pure listing of the results without context (see WP:NOT#STATS). PROD was declined by reason of " a ton of sport articles present just result tables", which is in my opinion not a valid reason to include this article.) Adrianwn (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. This article belong to WikiProject A1 Grand Prix and is a part of the 2005-06 race reports. Not all reports articles are completed (some of them are like 2005-06 A1 Grand Prix of Nations, United States of America or all 2007-08 reports like 2007-08 A1 Grand Prix of Nations, Shanghai, China). Of course, these articles need to be improved. Let the project members work on it. The WikiProject A1 Grand Prix is a small WikiProject but with the main WikiProject Motorsport we decide to let time to improve the race report articles like 2007-08 reports (see e.g link above). - Rollof1 (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a synopsis page of one of the 2005-06 A1 Grand Prix season's race weekends. You can't just single out this particular page just because it doesn't have as much details as some of the other results. Let us in the A1GP WikiProject deal with it. If we find more useful information for the article, we'll add it. Obviously older races before the WikiProject was setup won't have as many details as fairly recent/futures races, but cut us some slack... TheChrisD Rants•Edits 08:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't intend to single out this article, I'm just using it as a test case for about 15 other articles which look the same. Furthermore, it's not like I nominated a young article for deletion: this one has been looking the same (a table of racing results) for more than two and a half years. The article violates WP:WWIN and there was no indication that this was going to change in the foreseeable future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianwn (talk • contribs) 10:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With that sort of logic, it's as if you're saying that all race weekend pages from all forms of motorsport should be deleted... TheChrisD Rants•Edits 14:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. The problem is not that the article is about a race weekend, but that it is a just a table about the results of the race, with no or just minimal context. Please read WP:NOT#STATS. Adrianwn (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that really were the case, then 80% of all the Formula One race weekend pages should be deleted... Take the 1996 Belgian Grand Prix for example. I don't see any AfD or prod for it, even in it's history... TheChrisD Rants•Edits 15:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked through your contributions, and it seems as if you nominated 14 of such articles for speedy deletion. Three days have since passed without any deletion, before someone removed the template, because the speedy deletion didn't happen. It also looks as if half of your edits over the past few days have been to nominate articles for deletion, and from the lack of red links, it doesn't appear as if they have been successful. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 14:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument concerning my other edits has nothing to do with this debate.
  • No, I did not nominate those other 14, similiar articles for speedy deletion (what makes you think that?), I proposed them for deletion (see rationale of this AfD). This means that they get deleted if within five days nobody objects to their deletion. However, somebody did object, so I took one of them to AfD, because I didn't agree with the reason for the objection (this is the recommended procedure for this case).
  • The reason why I proposed many articles for deletion is not that I am on some kind of "killing spree" ;-), but that I was going through the backlog of WikiProject Notability, and a lot of articles I found there were, in my opinion, candidates for deletion. But again, this has nothing to do with this debate.
  • The reason why you don't see any red links in my contributions is that deleted articles are not listed there.
Adrianwn (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you don't need to explain the inner workings of Wikipedia policy to me, I know how things work and what's right and not. (WP:DTTR) TheChrisD Rants•Edits 15:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get irritated :). Wikipedia:WikiProject A1 Grand Prix and WikiProject Motorsport think these articles are enough pertinent to keep them. There aren't good but starting artcicles (like the ones quote TheChrisD about F1). We need to improve them (probably not in the close future) otherwise we must delete all A1GP race report articles (this debate was already discussed in WikiProject Motorsport talk pages concluding to keep). - Rollof1 (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I removed prod because this article is pretty much up to the standards of most Wikipedia articles on sport competitions. Just check any article about Beijing Olympics - they all could be deleted on the same grounds as they contain nothing else but the result tables. I agree that such standard / format is really low and should be improved, but deletion is not a proper venue for that. Renata (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Charrow[edit]

Robert Charrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable lawyer/official for the Reagan administration. Notability tag has been on article since June 2007. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete barring establishment of notability through independent sources. This article can be easily recreated later if sources are uncovered in the future. -Verdatum (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If any of the users who'd been throwing tags on this article (the first 14 seconds after the author's first edit, driving him away) had bothered to research, they'd have noticed that Charrow is a highly-prominent, often-published, often enough the subject of major press coverage, attorney and US government official. http://www.gtlaw.com/People/RobertPCharrow The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expand and bio-stub templates were added 14 minutes after the article was created. The rest of the tags were added months later. -- Swerdnaneb 00:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and trim. Per Google. It's out there. He's an active news-maker. I think the details of his life (which dominate the article right now) could be left out. -- Swerdnaneb 00:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by Jimfbleak as vandalism. (non-admin closure) Cunard (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NBC4KidsTV The Game Station Weekday Nights[edit]

NBC4KidsTV The Game Station Weekday Nights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax article; no such entity exists. Mhking (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gage elementary school[edit]

Gage elementary school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Elementary schools are not notable. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7: "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Themfromspace (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to the redlink Rochester School District (Minnesota) which I believe is the district. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notwithstanding the general rule that elementary schools are mentioned in an article about the school district, this one has almost no content (2 sentences) and breaks two rules regarding the use of capital letters just in the title alone. Sometimes, teachers do an article as part of a class lesson on research by computer, and by the time the lesson is over, the article is quietly deleted. However, if a teacher had started this one, it would have been entitled "Gage Elementary School". Mandsford (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect normal practice for elementary schools is to redirect the page to the school district page. If there is another notable reason, it can stay (but none have been given).--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by Jimfbleak as blatant advertising/being non-notable. (non-admin closure) Cunard (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick da 1[edit]

Rick da 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Musical artist who appears once in search results, on soundclick.com, which is a music version of MySpace. Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - /me shivers... J.delanoygabsadds 18:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prideball[edit]

Prideball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sport probably made up one day Madcoverboy (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October is National Poetry Month[edit]

October is National Poetry Month (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Search only turns up non-primary sources (blogs, a few school websites.) Part of User:Ambrose1435's contributions dealing with Jim MacCool. Doesn't pass WP:ORG. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with National_Poetry_Month#International_Poetry_Celebrations. A valiant acheivement for October, though April is Walpurgisnacht Month. Merosonox  t c g  07:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article right now I say...
    for Wikipedia will not work this way.
    Notablitiy and references, required they are
    but to meet these marks this one is far.
    I mean no harm to the one who wrote
    the kind thoughts placed behind this note
    but my mind's made up and I say delete,
    now I must excuse myself--it's time to eat!
    --Paul McDonald (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. It looks like he copied it from another page, perhaps a mirror of Wikipedia. There are no sources, but numbers that seem to indicate what are supposed to be sources. However, the sources are nowhere to be found. By the way, I like the above poster's take on it. Props! Lady Galaxy 22:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 16:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THE PERFORMANCE POETRY SOCIETY[edit]

THE PERFORMANCE POETRY SOCIETY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Few hits for this organization; fails WP:ORG. this has been created along with a number of other entries focusing on Jim MacCool by User:Ambrose1435; expect more AfDs. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speey delete. Spam is bad enough but when they shout - kill it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE I'M NOT SURE IT'S SPEEDY-ABLE, BUT IT'S SPAM-ISH AND NOT NOTABLE. However, Jim MacCool may be the best name ever. Paragon12321 01:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep, but rename as Performance Poetry Society (without the all-caps style). -- Objectivesea (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Being bold per SNOW & A1/3 - it's just 2 bleedin' sentences with no substance! SkierRMH (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. President (2008 film)[edit]

Mr. President (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Madcoverboy (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Little or no content, and per WP:CRYSTAL Lugnuts (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFF. No evidence found that principal photography has started. "Status: Unknown" according to IMDb.[27] Only the producer is announced. • Gene93k (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A 2008 Chris Rock interview: [28], A March 2008 update at IMDB. show there's a buzz... but that's all. The one sentence article will not be missed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY DELETE. Little content on the page, a one sentence page should not be kept. No cast has been announced, shooting hasn't started yet & currently there is no need for this article. The best possible thing for it is to DELETE IT, quickly. Dirtyharry1994 (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides all that, it is obviously an attack on Senator Clinton. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Author's comedy skills could use a lot of work. Mandsford (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above: fails WP:NFF since shooting hasn't begun yet. Cliff smith talk 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Horror (Remake)[edit]

Rocky Horror (Remake) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Film that has yet to be cast, much less started principal photography. WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge with The Rocky Horror Picture Show as unsourced artcle Fails WP:Crystal and WP:NFF. The rumour as reported in Variety has a lot of supposition, but no declarable fact. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Announced as of 13 August 2008, due hopefully in 2009. Essentially a news-release style duplication of Rocky Horror Picture Show#Remake minus any references. Nothing worth merging. • Gene93k (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. The article can be recreated if the project begins filming (and I hope it doesn't!) -- JediLofty UserTalk 10:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This article really needs to be kept, as there is much speculation about the film floating around the internet. Fans of the original (& other people) won't know what's truth and what isn't. This article is where people can turn to for truth and unbiased info. In the coming months their will be much more information around the film & I don't think the Rocky Horror Picture Show page will house all that info. Anyway filming is due to start soon, so it makes sense to keep the article. Dirtyharry1994 (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 7:17pm, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can spin a remake article out from the main Rocky Horror page when the shooting starts, not before. This film does not have a director or a cast yet and the October 2009 release date is aspirational. It's a long way from announcement to actual shooting and many many more film projects fail to shoot than succeed. Wikipedia should be a tertiary source of WP:verifiable facts published elsewhere. The established article neatly contains all of that now. As for overload, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't believe they even have a cast yet. There are a lot of things that can prevent the movie from being made. Perhaps there should be a list page for would-be notable films that get canceled. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Far too early for a standalone article. WP:CRYSTAL violation.Kww (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Gene: This fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL, and there's nothing here that isn't already at Rocky Horror Picture Show#Remake. Cliff smith talk 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails wp:nff. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, with no verifiable sources... welcome back when it doesn't fail NFF & CRYSTAL. SkierRMH (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the sources I can find are from Rocky Horror fans like myself who are furious that anyone would ever plan on ever making a remake of a movie which we love so dearly (G4TV, Ain't It Cool News, etc.) but that's it. The movie hasn't even entered production or casting yet. Let's keep as a section in the Rocky Horror Picture Show article until the project actually starts. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 15:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - The controversy over Richard O'Brien's involvement makes this notable enough? Maybe the relevant info could be merged into the original film article in a "remake" section but looks like more than enough material here. QmunkE (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article's verifiable content is a just-added near word-for-word copy from the main Rocky Horror article. There's not much if anything to merge back. The "Oh, Really?" and "That's unfortunate." reactions are not enough to justify a separate article. • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neopostmodernism[edit]

Neopostmodernism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't make heads or tails of this... is it WP:OR, WP:NEO, or just non-sense? Madcoverboy (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted (G11) by Werdna. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advantage Healthcare Group[edit]

Advantage Healthcare Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article isn't an ad, but the company fails WP:ORG. Google returns nothing but primary sources Leonard(Bloom) 05:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted and salted as persistently recreated advertising/A7. — Werdna • talk 08:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baanah[edit]

Baanah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Besides the fact that it's two people-one article (not a WP:DISAMBIG page), neither of these fine men pass WP:BIO. Google returns a whole lot of biblical passages but none of them look to express notability. Leonard(Bloom) 05:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia doesn't need an article about every person mentioned in passing in the Bible. If there were anything to say about either of these people other than summarizing the Bible verses they appeared in, maybe they'd warrant an article...but apparently there isn't. --Smeazel (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipref[edit]

Wikipref (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original Research Merosonox  t c g  05:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is original research and I nominate as per WP:NOT. Merosonox  t c g  05:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur M. Dula[edit]

Arthur M. Dula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. Prod'ed by IP editor, but I think intent was to nominate for Afd. Reason for Prod was "Does not meet criteria for notability." Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as subject is the focus of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (like this one [30]) and is now properly cited with inline references. - Dravecky (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 05:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pigman☿ 01:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese copy method[edit]

Chinese copy method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is a well-disguised piece of original research. The sources cited are illustrations of counterfeiting and intellectual property infringements, not the so-called "Chinese copy method".

Basically, the term is a neologism. The cited references do not support the existence of the subject of the article, but instead offer illustrations of what the creator is terming the "Chinese copy method". I've looked at the cited references in detail, and conclude as follows:

  • It seems that if the term doesn't actually exist, this should be merged to Reverse engineering rather than deleting all content, as this phenomenon (of Chinese companies getting hold of foreign-made products, taking them apart to figure out how they're constructed, then making their own version, often in a blatantly illegal fashion) is well known and has been widely reported. Badagnani (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm concerned about how much contribution this material would actually make to Reverse engineering. Little of the sourced content is actually about Chinese reverse engineering. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With so little sources, it appears to be nothing but original research. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? User:Leonard G seems to believe there is, but I don't see any having been added to the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Research for reference is in progress - Leonard G. (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will be going to the San Francisco Mechanics' Institute Library in San Francisco this Thursday, August 28th to see what supporting information is available. For additional defense of the article see Talk:Original object template method - Leonard G. (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As stated above, this article seems to trick you because it provides sources. However, upon closer inspection of the sources, I see no mention of what the article claims. It just seems to be random, irrelevant junk. I doubt this meets notability, and it really seems to be original research to me. I found nothing on Google but a mirror of Wikipedia. Lady Galaxy 22:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, duplicates Reverse engineering. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


A use of the term found[edit]

Use of term found. In the following the term is used in a technically inappropriate way in a common pejorative manner:

EUROPE WAS CROWING, and it could be heard all the way across the ocean. Airbus called Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner "dreaming in seattle," and Airbus's then-CEO Noel Forgard dismissed the 787 as a "Chinese copy of [airbus's] A330." ...

This from Flying HIgh: How Boeing cut short Airbus's rule as king of the skies. James Thayer. The Weekly Standard (Dec 8, 2005) (1460 words). Found via Gale group (AP interactives)

Research will continue - Leonard G. (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm kinda cold. Wizardman 05:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 nfl receivers[edit]

Top 10 nfl receivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic list, arbitrary inclusion criteria. Based entirely on one site. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 04:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All this information is probably on the individual player's pages anyway. Who decided these are the top 10 receivers anyway? Ctjf83Talk 04:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia shouldn't contain original analysis like this. But note that the article doesn't currently seem to be linking to this AFD properly. --Rividian (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I click on the "this article's entry" link, and it links here for me Ctjf83Talk 04:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah it seems to work now. It was a redlink a minute ago. --Rividian (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arbitrary inclusion criteria. Townlake (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails everything. It's indiscriminate, criteria for inclusion arbitrary, bleeds OR... Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 04:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. Com'on, the last AfD was only last week. If you disagree with the outcome, take it to Deletion Review. seicer | talk | contribs 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

The Jewish Internet Defense Force[edit]

The Jewish Internet Defense Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As far as I can tell, all of the provided third-party references that can be considered reliable don't actually talk about this group. The CBS news one is about the Canadian military telling it's soldiers to not post their photos on Facebook. The Computerworld article is about the Simon Weisenthal Center. Perhaps I've missed something but all of the refs that actually cover the group are publications OF the group. It would seem to fail WP:N as a result. A Facebook vandalism group doesn't seem particularly notable, and WP:ONEEVENT seems to apply here as well, as the overall breadth of coverage is pretty scant. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Some of the references are not directly on-topic. However, the July 31 Telegraph article and the July 30 Jerusalem Post article are about this group's activities (taking over an anti-Israel Facebook group in order to delete it). No opinion yet as to the group's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) That's where I got the one event thing from. It doesn't seem like they've done much (or received much coverage) outside of that. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't understand why the jews care so much about the internet anyway. There is so much garbage on all sides. Article is confusing, one-sided, and fails WP:NOT Testmasterflex (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do understand why the Jews care about this kind of thing, but that's another topic. Northwestgnome (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think I knew more about it before I read it. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 04:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the JIDF is the primary topic of articles in three different newspapers which are referenced on the page. Nobody of Consequence, the background section includes references on the background (not related to the group -- so you are right there) but that is not unusual in a background section. Oboler (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also... why have the editors of the article not been notified on their talk pages that the article is nominated for delete? I thought that was common practice? Oboler (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph article and one of the Jerusalem Post articles give essentially the same information, telling about how some people hijacked a Facebook group. The other Post article, which is actually an opinion piece, seems to have been written by you? Possible conflict of interest? Regardless, a couple of articles that say the same thing don't really help establish notability beyond a one event kind of thing. Every day, people form pretend "groups" and claim they're notable for hijacking sites. Many of them have tried to create articles here and they're pretty much all been deleted. I just can't see how this group is worthy of a Wikipedia article. If they get more coverage in future publications, maybe so. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you're thinking of image deletions for dropping notices on people's talk page. The AFD notice on the top of the article page is a notification for everyone. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep First AfD ended a week ago as "keep" and there has been edit warring to some degree since then. Sorry, but I feel this is simply an extension of those disagreements which were being reasonably handled until this process was revved up. Banjeboi 07:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" What is a "snow keep?" -Again, I am fairly new here to editing WP, but when I've visited I rarely see this AfD on any articles, so I'm not sure how common it is. I have contributed to the article, and yes, I have been part of some of the aforementioned "warring." I do not wish to continue that here, but do feel in general that the article is well sourced and it is about a notable organization and this latest AfD does seem a bit odd considering the "warring" was just starting to die down and we were actually getting somewhere with the article--Einsteindonut (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Snow is essentially don't waste time with a process if the outcome is unlikely to change. I cite that only because the last AfD just closed a week ago as a "keep". If nothing else we would revert to the last good version if we needed to. I do sense, as you suggest, that the warring was dying down so hope we can get back to a constructive state. Banjeboi 08:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and wikipedia is not there to create or advertise a phenomenon but to report its relevency. The "website" and/or "unformal" organisation is completely new and it nearly unknown from the media. What are the WP:RS secondary source that talk and refer to this ? Given it is new, we don't expect scholar but at least several newspaper articles reporting its action. The fact it is an unformal anonymous organisation and that it targets "living people" is also another concerns per the "philosophy" of WP:BLP. ; Comment The procedure follows to closely the former one. We should wait. Ceedjee (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources are saying its a real group. BTW in the USA speech calling for violence against a person or group is not protected by the First Amendment, just thought I'd mention that. Northwestgnome (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That's a lot of references for something to be nominated for deletion. Bstone (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural speedy keep Don't renom articles a week after the last AFD. If you disagree with how it went, take it to DRV. Jtrainor (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is notable, given that the organization has made the news several times. Articles exist for less notable and less sourced topics. The only argument in favor of deletion is the present quality of the article, and the article should be improved to meet the proper quality standards -- not deleted. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Party candidates, 40th Canadian federal election[edit]

Liberal Party candidates, 40th Canadian federal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is one of many dumping grounds for biographies of non-notable unelected politicians. It is a compromise approach, between those wanting deletion of non-notable bios and those who want to keep them. They're kept, fully intact, but grouped up in a here. There's only a small number of bios now, but this will grow when the election is called. Prior to nominating, I considered simply fixing it, by removing all the WP:BLP information that's not properly cited. But, the problem is, that it's *all* unsourced. Every word. What's happening is political party operatives write promotional pieces for candidates, usually copy/pastes from their web site. These promo articles are spotted by an established Wikipedian, who sees they're not notable, and then merges it into an article like this. Now, if somebody wishes to go to the effort of making an article that's an actual list of all Liberal candidates, than that might be good, but I suggest it's probably easier to create a true list from scratch, since you don't want to have a section for each item in a list. This has one-section per riding, because it's designed to have full bios for each riding's candidate. Every reason we have for deleting non-notable biographies should apply to deleting a holding tank for non-notable biographies. Rob (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep lets not be hasty here... this is a topic clearly within wp:not even if all sub-particles contained within are not Testmasterflex (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, how would you address the problems unsourced claims about living persons, non-notability, partisan promotion, and likely copyright violations? As said, if I removed all those problems, there'd be almost nothing left. --Rob (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should those of us who are card-carrying members of a different Canadian political party get involved? (We might want to delete the entire Liberal Party and not just its candidates! ;) ) Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up. What's wrong with removing all unsourced content? An article listing the candidates and sourced info seems reasonable to me and if there is sufficient sourced content for any particular entry, then it can be a break-out article of its own. The organisation of the article seems fine to me but if there's a better way, then I'd encourage re-organising it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prediction: Nobody will clean this up properly. Rather, several more copyright violations, unsourced bios of living people, and promotional pieces will be added to this article, especially during the election campaign. Once the election is over, all editing of the page will stop, and this page will look just like most similar cases . --Rob (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prediction #2: Without this, we'll end up with a pile of separate individual articles about each individual Liberal Party candidate. None of them will get properly cleaned up either. A few will get deleted and recreated again; many more will just sit there as permanent clutter. I'm certainly a big fan of the goal that every article on Wikipedia should be of maximum quality, but if there must be imperfect works in progress we're infinitely better off with one article that needs more cleanup work than it's getting instead of 308 articles that need more cleanup work than they're getting. And make no mistake: even with policies in place that explicitly inveigh against unsourced articles about unelected politicians, there are hundreds of them and not nearly enough attention being paid to cleaning up or deleting them. As much as you may want it to be, the actual choice at hand isn't between this and properly sourced cleanliness — it's between this and dividing this into 308 pieces that will get even less cleanup attention than this currently is. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it's not fair. First: This whole idea appears to lost it's way from the early beginning. The list of ridings was a good start but the notion seems to have lost it's way in the transition to it's current form. Why not have a single list of ridings and show all nominees, for all parties, for each riding? And, why make it just for the 40th Federal Election? Why not make it flexible enough that it can be used for the next election as well? Perhaps a chronology of nominated candidates would be a better solution - winners and losers. Do we really want to go through this again and again? Another point is that this information is already available in Wikipedia and just needs to be brought together. Secondly: I object strongly to the notion that unelected nominees are somehow non-notable. The fact that they won their nomination IS notable - at least to the people of Canada. These people have a history and usually have some standing in their communities and rightly deserve to have their own page. Often they have made an impact in the world for reasons far greater then merely being nominated (I could list hordes of people listed as notable because they played some minor role on a hockey team). As I understand it, Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information, There are over 110,000 people in my riding and they deserve to have something more than cursory comments about the people they are looking up. The current conception does not allow the user to access that information for unelected nominees. Why, for example, am I allowed to click on Walt Lastewka's name and get re-directed to his page? Yet, Heather Carter who is notable for more than her candidacy, on the other hand, gets no such courtesy. Are they not both running in the same election? Is the information on Heather Carter somehow less valuable than the information on Walt Lastewka? If the courtesy is not extended fairly and equitably then I say we should delete and then fire the Deletionists. Better yet: fix it up so that it becomes a handy source of information and allow links to candidate pages - that's fair AND informative. (talk) johncaron.ca 19:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Walt Lastewka has already been elected to the House of Commons, which means that he falls within the class of politicians who are inherently notable because they've actually held a seat in a federal or provincial legislature. If you think Heather Carter is notable enough for an article, then you're certainly free to write up an article that actually contains real, verifiable, neutral sources — if she's received media coverage for her work, then actually citing it is usually sufficient — and comes from sources independent of the subject, rather than reading like you typed it straight off her campaign brochure the way the previous version did. But WP:POLITICIAN is quite clear that candidacy for political office is not a sufficient claim of notability on its own. If she's notable for more than just being a candidate, then the onus is on you to show it. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody is not notable enough for a stand-alone biography, why is that you think it's ok to copy/paste the exact same bio text into a section of a page like this? Does unsourced material, badly sourced material, blatant promotionalism, non-notability, and, copyright violations become acceptable because it has more company on the same page? How does the merge/redirect process fix these problems ? It's the approach of merging/redirecting into this article, that's at the root of this AFD. --Rob (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFD consensus came up with the merged biopage solution in the first place, so I'll thank you to stop approaching this as if it were about me. Simply deleting articles on non-notable candidates doesn't work, because then they just get recreated again without any actual improvements — but leaving them as standalone articles fails numerous Wikipedia policies and leaves us with up to 308 articles that need far more improvement than they ever going to get, instead of just one article that needs improvement. What alternative solution would you honestly propose? Bearcat (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back when you started this blanket-blind-merge compromise approach, Wikipedia wasn't yet taking BLP issues as seriously as it does now. WP:BLP now makes clear that BLP violations can and should be removed from *all* locations in Wikipedia immediately. They shouldn't be simply relocated. For instance, it used to be ok to push violations to the talk page, for discussion and improvement. But now BLP violations must be removed immediately, anywhere. If you choose to do a merge/redirect it's your obligation to remove all unsourced (potentially) contentious material immediately. If that means removing all the text, then so-be-it. You keep on talking about violations of policy in stand-alone biographies, but don't explain why those same violations in merged articles is somehow less bad. It discredits Wikipedia when we publish campaign brochures, with light editing, *regardless* of whether we publish one promo-per-page or multiple-promos-per-page. Junk is junk. Merged junk is still junk. What solutions do I propose: Follow WP:BLP and others policies consistantly. If something meets the criteria, keep it, else delete. Merge/redirects is for *legitimate* material which needs to be relocated, for reasons such as providing proper context. --Rob (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "I did not start this approach; AFD consensus started this approach" are you having trouble grasping? And no, it is not my special obligation to remove all unsourced material immediately upon doing a merge/redirect — every Wikipedian has that right at any time, and I have just as much right as any other Wikipedian to state that the outer limit of my interest in the subject is the act of ensuring that the content is in its correct place, so that the people who do want to review it for sources and WP:BLP conformity can do so. Beyond that, I have no more obligation in the matter than you do — my interest in unelected political candidates begins and ends at keeping the categories clean. If you choose to take on the equally important task of ensuring that the articles are properly sourced and/or have unsourced content deleted, then good on you, because it's sorely needed — but neither you nor I have any responsibility to take on any task we don't choose to take on. That's part of being a Wikipedian: I get to decide which tasks I'll take on and which I won't, and you get to make that same decision for yourself. If I choose to look after the relocation part of our policy for unelected candidates, but leave the reviewing for sources part to other people who care more about that aspect of this particular topic, it's my place to decide whether that's okay or not, not yours. Bearcat (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are not responsible for all merge/redirects. You are responsible for all of *your* merge/redirects. By attaching your name to your edits, you make it less likely for others to check the work, since they think an established user already checked it. Surely, you expect other users to [{WP:AGF]] and assume you wouldn't add copyright violations and promotion to an article. I am not asking you take on any task you don't want. I am just asking you to stop doing a task that's harmful. --Rob (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The identity of the Wikipedia editor who added the content only comes into play if (a) you're on Recent Changes patrol in the first 15-30 seconds after the edit is made, or (b) mine happens to be the top edit on people's watchlists, which is only true until the next edit comes along or the page scrolls off the bottom of the list. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, who's looking at the article later, and noticing that there are sourcing problems, reviews the entire edit history to see who added what. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree that it is a mistake to simply cut and paste a poor unsourced bio into a candidates article. It can be seen, however, as the first step in a merge process. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't decide who's notable, if there are adequate reliable sources for a fair and balanced article, then by definition the subject is notable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, as others have said. This is a good topic, and I refuse to believe there aren't RS that cover this information. The one I looked at had 6 immediately obvious hits in RS, and If there are adequate reliable sources for articles (as there seem to be here, briefly looking at the subjects), then it makes sense to organize them in this way, so I don't see anything unresolvable here that can't be solved by the normal editing process. Celarnor Talk to me 03:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, per several precedents. CJCurrie (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep we have this kind of list over the past few federal general elections. The article needs a clean-up although it is in part dependable on the speed the Liberals are nominating their candidates (I'm surprised that there are several blanked ridings). For the candidates that do have articles (so provincial politicians, councillors and mayors of major cities of over 100 000 are notable for their own article) add some brief intro info in their section. --JForget 00:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's fairly obvious the result of this is going to be Keep and (somebody else will) fix it. So, I'll accept that, and to be consistent, I undid the redirect for Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Alberta provincial election which was based on an AFD that had the opposite outcome. --Rob (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never saw that AfD but I wonder what the chances are that that basically sub-stub will ever be expanded to something useful now that the election is long over. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd say there's a fairly good chance of it. I'm more interested in these pages as historical documentation than as "current events", and I've expanded a number of archival ones. CJCurrie (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Obvious. WP:SNOW. — Scientizzle 23:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ifisboia[edit]

Ifisboia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day - need I say more? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday (Carly Comando Song)[edit]

Everyday (Carly Comando Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Carly Comando doesn't exist yet, which IMHO would be the place to start. Merosonox  t c g  06:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. A non-notable song by a non-notable artist.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 07:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if the artist is notable but the song certainly is, seeing as how that NBA commercial with this song in it gets played 4 or 5 times during every NBA broadcast now. Betterusername (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Eh, they'll stop playing this soon so often soon enough. Just wait. I don't think it meets notability. Lady Galaxy 22:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Non-admin closure. EnviroboyTalkCs 21:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nature's Cure[edit]

Nature's Cure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An anonymous editor nominated this article on August 10th. I'm completing the nomination. The editor's rationale follows: "The article has been tagged as Advertising since March 2008. It was proposed as G11 in June, said proposal apparently failing in the history. This article still reads as self-promoting spam, and there is a vague assertion of corporate notability but it doesn't pass a smell test to me. Specifically it does not pass WP:CORP, specifically that the company has not has significant coverage in secondary sources. No mention of corporate size or other reasons that it is notable except for local articles. The bulk of the article reads like advertising about the company's products. Time to nominate it for deletion. I've placed the main tag, but cannot complete the nomination. 98.215.48.213 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)" -- EnviroboyTalkCs 05:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article was recently trimmed by another editor; much of the advertising alluded to above was removed. EnviroboyTalkCs 05:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article serves only to increase sales of their product. It does not serve the goals of wikipedia in any way. 207.112.52.135 (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there any chance of this article being written better, if someone actually wanted to take the time to improve it? Then again, if it has had the spam tag on it since March, it probably won't be improved Ctjf83Talk 03:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anyone is free to create a redirect if they so choose.--Kubigula (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Wohlin[edit]

Anna Wohlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Her only claim to fame seems to be that she was the girlfriend of Brian Jones and having written two books about him (neither of which appear to be very notable). - Icewedge (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a lot of trivial coverage about her on google, but I can't see anything substantial except for the one Independent article in the references.
    Redirect to Brian Jones — redirects are cheap, and it could be a plausible search term. --AmaltheaTalk 21:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep First of all, I must point out that I started the article, and this week keep should be read with that in mind. Icewedge and Amalthea argue a very strong case. With greatest respect to Ms Wohlin, I agree she is not very notable. As for references, (again with greatest respect to her) no doubt she would appear but as a footnote character in works on the Rolling Stones, and only some of these would be reliable references.
I guess the point of principle here is whether Wikipedia should have articles for very famous peoples' girlfriends (or boyfriends), where notability is completely contingent on the famous person. (I'd say yes, but there are rules.)
Perhaps there are (admittedly somewhat ghoulish) differences, in that she was witness to Jones' death, and that she made claims that his death was not by misadventure. Admittedly any notability arising from this would again be an epiphenomenon of Jones and his passing.
In summary, my (no doubt biased) opinion is that the subject of the article is at best marginally notable, but notable nevertheless. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC). See below for reasons why this weak keep striked.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although as one of the better-known groupies of her era a redirect to Brian Jones is OK by me. But she isn't notable herself. --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. Topic does have one reliable, independent source. One is not enough - the article fails the "significant coverage" test of notability. While it could be argued that most or all reliable sources on Brian Jones would include significant coverage of article topic, the article has none of these notional references. Were they included, the topic may still fail notability per WP:People, most relevantly WP:People#Invalid Criteria--Shirt58 (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC) (who nevertheless prefers Icewedge, Amalthea, and Dhartung opinions that a redirect would be the best outcome.)[reply]
  • Delete. Googled "Anna Wohlin" and got below 5000 hits. In conjunction with the above claim of a single sourced article, I find her to be non-notable. CapnZapp (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of available U.S. stamp denominations[edit]

List of available U.S. stamp denominations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has not cited any sources for over a year. I finally found a reliable source [32], which makes it clear that the denominations listed on this page are wildly out of date. This article will probably never be anything substantially more than the table on that page, and will likely suffer from neglect and become outdated and hence useless. Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If this article is kept, at a minimum it must be rewritten to reflect currently available denominations, and it should be tidied up with some connecting prose so that it's at least a little better than the table from the USPS site. It seems to me, however, that it could easily be deleted and replaced with a link to the relevant USPS page, which will always be more up-to-date than Wikipedia can be. —Bkell (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have to believe a properly sourced (and accurate!) version of this could be merged somewhere; it seems that we would have a logical article where this information would fit. If that were the case, a redirect from this title would be in order. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once upon a time I think there was a sentence or two somewhere (maybe WP:NOT) which specifically gave bus schedules or train timetables as information which was not appropriate for Wikipedia, but I can't find it now. If anyone knows what I'm talking about, I would appreciate a link, to satisfy my frustration and because I think this is quite similar. —Bkell (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TopSpeed[edit]

TopSpeed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This game has not been released yet. Since when do we have articles on a game in beta that doesn't even have that many Ghits outside of its company's advertising? Also seems pretty spamalicious to me. NellieBly (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question You say it hasn't been released, but the page says July 5, and the download link works. So what's up? Ctjf83Talk 02:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer That's the beta release. I suspect they're using the article deliberately to attract free beta testers. --NellieBly (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still slightly confused, the article is for the first version, and the download link is for the second? Actually, I'm just gonna go with delete anyway Ctjf83Talk 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam page, used to promote the game. Ctjf83Talk 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Clearly advertising for the beta test MattieTK 12:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SPAM. No sources for this game that aren't just press releases or unreliable fan pages. Randomran (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete spam, and not even remotely good spam. (I removed some of the more heinous infractions) -Verdatum (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums containing a hidden track[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of albums containing a hidden track (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A ginormous, far from complete list of albums containing a hidden track. While the concept of a hidden track is certainly notable, I feel that this list fails WP:LC criteria #2 (The list is of interest to a very limited number of people) and #3 (The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). Furthermore, it is incredibly long. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As a horrible amount of listcruft. Ctjf83Talk 02:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Survived its last AfD - rather overwhelmingly - only three months ago; LISTCRUFT is neither policy nor guideline; nomination concedes concept is notable. Townlake (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A survival of another AfD is not a valid reason to keep. Other reasons to delete that are policy Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#DIRECTORY and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Ctjf83Talk 03:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So the question is whether this list is an indiscriminate collection of information (no; there are clear inclusion criteria for a list on a notable topic) or whether the list is a directory (no; I'm not sure how you think this qualifies as a directory; please elaborate?). As for the prior AfD, yes, articles can certainly be renominated; my perspective is that three months after a clear-"keep" prior AfD is far too soon. You disagree; I'm looking forward to seeing what others say, and I'm sure you are too. Townlake (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is basically a directory of albums with hidden tracks. While WP:Listcruft is not policy, it is good advice to follow, also, this list is not notable as this list would not be in any real paper encyclopedia. Ctjf83Talk 04:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I kind of like this article (But you see, i've already saved the page on my hard drive, so its no loss to me. I still can browse through it in private use) but the page is crufty and indiscriminate. Oh, and Ctjf83, i'd like to direct your attention to WP:NOTPAPER (yes, I know it isn't a free pass to inclusion, but simply stating that "a paper encyclopedia wouldn't cover "Article X" is really a pointless argument). There's also a shorter and better sourced for notability list at hidden track anyways. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 05:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete + Comment As per Ctjf83's "listcruft", however, this might make an interesting category. Merosonox  t c g  06:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, it should be added as a category. Ctjf83Talk 19:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:LIST. I respectfully disagree with the nominator's assertion that this is of limited interest -- quite the opposite, in my view. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete I believe a decent article could be created that is a list of notable hidden tracks. This would be albums containing hidden tracks that are reported in reputable independent resources; this would naturally be shorter than a list of notable albums that happen to contain hidden tracks. But, such a list would really require someone actively watching the article to see that the inclusion criteria is strictly enforced. Concievably, the inclusion criteria of this list can be explicitly stated (as per WP:SAL) to reflect the same thing; in which case, i'm fine with keeping it. I do like the idea of albums with a hidden track existing as a category, if such is not already the case. -Verdatum (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category idea was discussed in the previous AfD on this subject; the reasons for not treating it as a category appear sound in my opin. Townlake (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What would make a hidden track "notable" though? The only one I can think of that would really be "notable" would be "Skin (Sarabeth)" because it wound up being released as a single. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a fair question. My response: It's not the hidden tracks that are notable here, it's the albums that contain them. Certainly the addition of hidden tracks is a concept that is more commonplace today than it was in the past; that might be where our answer here is. So many albums have hidden tracks now that it's not a distinguishing feature. Would you agree with that statement? Townlake (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was using the word "notable" in terms of the general criteria for notability. IOW, a hidden track that has recieved "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and I have no idea how many hidden tracks can meet this criteria, but I'd expect it to be small. Certainly, any hidden tracks that meet WP:SONG would also be appropriate. Concerning the uniqueness of hidden tracks, I had just presumed it was a fad of the 90s, and had been declining in occurences since then, but what do I Know (yes, I'm too lazy to read the hidden track article right now). Concerning the reason for it not being a category, thank you for pointing that out, Townlake. I must admit, I don't understand the reasoning given in either the previous AfD or the prior CfD for the now-deleted category, but I expect that my understanding for criteria for categories is just off, I'm much more of an article person :) -Verdatum (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but keep as a category. This list could go on forever. Hidden tracks are common now. Undeath (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very trivial and just listcruft. RobJ1981 (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I missed the last vote, fortunately the list (I started it) is still there. It's a useful list that doesn't conflict with the above-mentioned criteria: it is of interest for quite a few people, cf. e.g. the amount of people contributing to the article and/or using it for reference (in Google the list appears as a first result below the article hidden track), and it's not an indiscriminate list (I just read WP:INDISCRIMINATE: the list does not contain FAQs/news/statistics/lyrics/plot summaries). The list contains information one cannot find elsewhere. The list should contain only notable hidden tracks, i.e. hidden tracks on albums that deserve a place (a separate article) on Wikipedia or have a special reputation. To decrease the length of the list one could implement this system. --Brz7 (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an appropriate list topic, not a repository or loosely associated list. Whether a hidden track is released as a single itself does not necessarily make a hidden track notable: the artist should be notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia and on their best or all of their albums. --Brz7 (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Being too long is not CFD. --Lord₪Sunday 02:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as list of loosely associated topics per WP:NOTDIR. The intersection of the topics "albums" and "hidden tracks" produces nothing informative about either topic, nor does it reveal a significant shared quality of the albums listed. Deor (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting, potentially useful for research into this baffling phenomenon (why would anyone hide a track?), obviously large amount of work done by many people interested in this topic, or the significant artists listed. What harm would it cause to leave it? Taking up too much memory? It was fun to scan through. Exactly the kind of thing that will only get produced by Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 03:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as it decisively passed AFD only 3 months ago and I see no indication anything has changed to warrant deletion so soon afterwards. 23skidoo (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The hidden track feature while not very rare, is definitely a feature of an album which matters to a buyer and the music industry. The criterion discriminates clearly, either the album has a hidden track or it doesn't. Actually, I think the article could be renamed to List of hidden tracks, since that is what this is a list of. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very weak WP:CRUFTCRUFT nomination that says it's too long. AFD isn't cleanup. SashaNein (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; nothing to indicate significant changes which would require putting it up for AfD so soon after it had previously been kept; stop flogging the dead horse. I'd also like to point out that WP:LC is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. Ironholds 07:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful, unique innformation--perfect for a forum such as Wikipedia. Not Listcruft--the information is too useful to qualify as such. Eauhomme (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although it is missing references, I agree with the above users who decided to keep it. Lady Galaxy 22:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is useful. The page can be cleaned up so that it can stay. However, if it is deleted, I'll save the current revision on my computer. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Maxim (☎) 16:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate elections, 2014[edit]

United States Senate elections, 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Basically the same reason I gave to delete US presidential elections in 2012, as there is no information, except for the date, and it is 6 years away. Also, the incumbents won't even be known until November! Even then, the incumbent might not run again in 2014. There is an infinite number of State house and senate members who could run for US senate. Ctjf83Talk 02:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 12:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclegp[edit]

Cyclegp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

May not meet notability standards. Declined speedy. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no notable asserted with this article, and to me it looks like it is written like an advertisement for the race. This would be the same as adding ever minor race in every small city in the world, if it isn't of NASCAR status, it shouldn't have an article Ctjf83Talk 02:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no source for notability.--Boffob (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merging is at editor's discretion and does not require an AfD.--PeaceNT (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: merged to MJHL Seasons. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1967–68 MJHL season[edit]

1967–68 MJHL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another MJHL season, unlike other AfD's, this has content but no references to reliable sources to verify this information, and a non notable minor league, warrants article for league but not individual seasons. SRX 01:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree !!! The MHJL has a rich hockey history. It's a "junior" league that at one point challenged for the Memorial Cup. Other sites would welcome this info. As for references many are listed, a lot of articles on here are hard to check. Hockeyal (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)HockeyAl[reply]

  • Comment Hockeyal, you need to start communicating with people on your userpage. I've observed and even tried to talk to you for almost a year now, along with others, but you ignore our messages. Use your userpage! DMighton (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Junior leauges are normally not notable. Even if it does have a "rich history" --- what makes it notable rich history?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Junior leagues ARE generally notable, MINOR leagues are not. DMighton (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request please supply a link to some consensus, policy, guideline, etc that shows that junior leagues are generally notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While its not me that made the comment. I would like to note that all it really has to do is have sources from multiple independant reliable sources and be verifiable. Which one of the top junior leagues of its time most certainly will be able to do. The age of these seasons will of course make it harder to find on the internet, but there is almost undoubtably many reliable sources out there on paper. -Djsasso (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into one The league is notable and the seasons are semi-notable... but notable as a whole. This and the others should be merges into something like List of OHL seasons. DMighton (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per DMighton. I'd also like to correct a statement, which pertains to hockey terminology: minor professional leagues are notable, but "minor leagues" are also used to refer to sub-junior youth leagues, which are not notable.  Ravenswing  17:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I could see myself agreeing with merge. We have long stated that junior leagues seasons were notable when it came to the entire league, but were not notable for individual teams. I don't see why this league should be any different from any of the other junior leagues season pages. -Djsasso (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per DMighton. Resolute 22:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above - one season in a junior league does not strike me as notable, but add them all together and you probably have a FL in there. On a related note, Manitoba Junior Hockey League could use a bit of cleanup, as it looks like a flock of peacocks has swarmed all over sections of the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merging is at editor's discretion and does not require an AfD.--PeaceNT (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: merged to MJHL Seasons. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1958-59 MJHL season[edit]

1958-59 MJHL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another of these MJHL seasons, this is not under A1, but like I said in the other AfD's, non notable minor league, warrants for article about league but not individual articles for seasons when their are only a few teams. SRX 01:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree !!! The MHJL has a rich hockey history. It's a "junior" league that at one point challenged for the Memorial Cup. Other sites would welcome this info. As for references many are listed, a lot of articles on here are hard to check. Hockeyal (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)HockeyAl[reply]

  • Delete Junior leauges are normally not notable. Even if it does have a "rich history" --- what makes it notable rich history?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Junior leagues need something fairly big for notability to be established. This doesn't. Undeath (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Junior leagues ARE generally notable, MINOR leagues are not. DMighton (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into one The league is notable and the seasons are semi-notable... but notable as a whole. This and the others should be merges into something like List of OHL seasons. DMighton (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per DMighton. I'd also like to correct a statement, which pertains to hockey terminology: minor professional leagues are notable, but "minor leagues" are also used to refer to sub-junior youth leagues, which are not notable.  Ravenswing  17:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I could see myself agreeing with merge. We have long stated that junior leagues seasons were notable when it came to the entire league, but were not notable for individual teams. I don't see why this league should be any different from any of the other junior leagues season pages. -Djsasso (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merging is at editor's discretion and does not require an AfD.--PeaceNT (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Merged to MJHL Seasons. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1951-52 MJHL season[edit]

1951-52 MJHL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CSD#A1, little context, this is a minor league that is WP:NN, it may be notable for a page for itself, but not for individual season articles, these should either not be created or made into one big list. SRX 01:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree !!! The MHJL has a rich hockey history. It's a "junior" league that at one point challenged for the Memorial Cup. Other sites would welcome this info. As for references many are listed, a lot of articles on here are hard to check. Hockeyal (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)HockeyAl[reply]

  • Delete or merge these articles into something on the MJHL. Article doesn't even define MJHL! JJL (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Junior leauges are normally not notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Junior leagues ARE generally notable, MINOR leagues are not. DMighton (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into one The league is notable and the seasons are semi-notable... but notable as a whole. This and the others should be merges into something like List of OHL seasons. DMighton (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per DMighton. I'd also like to correct a statement, which pertains to hockey terminology: minor professional leagues are notable, but "minor leagues" are also used to refer to sub-junior youth leagues, which are not notable.  Ravenswing  17:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I could see myself agreeing with merge. We have long stated that junior leagues seasons were notable when it came to the entire league, but were not notable for individual teams. I don't see why this league should be any different from any of the other junior leagues season pages. -Djsasso (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merging is at editor's discretion and does not require an AfD. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Merged to MJHL Seasons. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1950-51 MJHL season[edit]

1950-51 MJHL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A1, looking at it, it seems as if it wont be expanded any further as 1951-52 MJHL season also falls for A1. SRX 01:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This season will be further expanded in the near future. Hockeyal (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)HockeyAl[reply]

I disagree !!! The MHJL has a rich hockey history. It's a "junior" league that at one point challenged for the Memorial Cup. Other sites would welcome this info. As for references many are listed, a lot of articles on here are hard to check. Hockeyal (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)HockeyAl[reply]

  • Delete or merge these articles into something on the MJHL. Article doesn't even define MJHL! JJL (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Junior leagues ARE generally notable, MINOR leagues are not. DMighton (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into one The league is notable and the seasons are semi-notable... but notable as a whole. This and the others should be merges into something like List of OHL seasons. DMighton (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per DMighton. I'd also like to correct a statement, which pertains to hockey terminology: minor professional leagues are notable, but "minor leagues" are also used to refer to sub-junior youth leagues, which are not notable.  Ravenswing  17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I could see myself agreeing with merge. We have long stated that junior leagues seasons were notable when it came to the entire league, but were not notable for individual teams. I don't see why this league should be any different from any of the other junior leagues season pages. -Djsasso (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per DMighton. Junior leagues are very notable. Individual seasons, not quite as much. Placing them all into one article would help. Resolute 22:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lizha James[edit]

Lizha James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable performer, to put it mildly. My research came up with only passing mentions of a nomination in a very minor African music award competition in 2006 -- and those references aren't part of this article. The article fails WP:RS, WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, although i'd point out that those ref's not being in the article is an invalid argument; if I found a band that had one multiple grammies but didn't have em listed on their WP page, it doesn't mean that the band is non-notable just because the info doesn't exist on WP. Research shows that Lizha James was in a pair of other bands, but neither are notable per WP:MUSIC, so that fails. Ironholds 16:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Consider this difference: Lizha James versus Avril Lavigne. Notable musicians should get at least some hits on Google news like Avril Lavigne does, but Lizha James does not, so she currently is not notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

United States presidential election, 2012[edit]

The result was delete and redirect to United States presidential election, and protect redirect. Maxim (☎) 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
United States presidential election, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

First of all, the election is over 4 years away, so there is no information about it, other than the date. All the article says is IF Obama or McCain....they might run. As far as I'm concerned, there is not evidence either would run again, even the winner might not run again. It also says "Other Republicans that could run are....". That is also unsourced. Realistically, there could be 435 House members that could run, along with 100 Senators, 50 governors, and dozens of mayors and other top officials from both political parties. This article is very unsourced, and the only sourced thing is the date. The page could also be redirected back to United States presidential election where it use to redirect to. Ctjf83Talk 01:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 01:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is nothing concrete at all to report except I guess projected primary dates, but even those could quite possibly change, as far as I know. --Rividian (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the revision history for the 2008 election page, it was started on December 18, 2003. --Noname2 (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ya, but that doesn't mean it should have been created, especially if it had this much unsourced information in it too. That was even worse, because they didn't know if Bush was going to win in 2004 or not. Ctjf83Talk 01:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with your explanation, Ctjf, but bizarrely, WP:NOT at the time apparently included the 2008 pres. elections articles as a specific exception to the crystal ball clause (proof). I still think it was a bad idea to have the 2008 election article in 2003, it's just kind of strange that policy specifically allowed for it. --Rividian (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It allowed for the 2008 election, but what does that have to do with the 2012 election? We are discussing deleting 2012, not 2008! Ctjf83Talk 02:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm just saying it's interesting that WP:NOT allowed for the 2008 election article 3.5 years in advance (it was added in 3/05 apparently, not 2003 as I mistakenly thought). Still, 2012 is 4.5 years away and most importantly the 2008 election hasn't occurred yet. --Rividian (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The 2008 article was in fact created in 2003, but looking back I don't see much point in it having been created so early relative to the election. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep. The 2012 election is the next election for senators elected in 2006. We should always have articles on the next election for major offices in any country, especially in the case of set elections. This allows information to be added over time, and prevents dozens of articles being started up for candidates who may or may not be successful. Anything after 2012 is crystal-balling, but this is not: it's the next election. Change to Neutral, as I was wrong about what election it was. Take this as a warning, folks: don't edit after 36 hours of wakefulness. --NellieBly (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is why articles can be recreated when there is relevant information. There is no person who has announced running for 2012, and noone probably will until atleast 2010, so that is 2 years of nothing but a date! Ctjf83Talk 02:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, this is the presidential election, has nothing to do with senators! Ctjf83Talk 02:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or redirect to United States presidential election. It's too early to create this article; there's not going to be anything in it but vague crystal-ball speculation until after this year's presidential election. (At that time, there will be some slightly informed speculation.) The fact that the 2008 article was created even earlier relative to the election just suggests to me that Wikipedia was more tolerant of crystal-ballery back then. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too futuristic failing WP:CRYSTAL Testmasterflex (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 04:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to United States presidential election. There are not sufficient details available yet for the 2012 race to sustain a separate article; the existing article is a potpourri of random political topics. Townlake (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It will just be a collection point for speculation. It can be created after the upcoming election is over. --Rob (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why not for 2016, 2020, etc? Is Wikipedia a perpetual (im)personal organizer? Merosonox  t c g  06:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States presidential election and fully protect until 2009-01-20 at least. The page is linked to several high profile articles and deletion would cause red links. I'd just like to point out the the arguments for deletion stated here were rasied by me on the talk page weeks ago. --Philip Stevens (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing concrete will be known before November. The article is pure speculation. • Gene93k (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No real info available. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 16:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not time for this article, remake it after the future election finishes --Numyht (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and only re-introduce AFTER the results from the 2008 election are final (IE, sometime in november) Nickjbor (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States presidential election and fully protect per Philip Stevens. Hektor (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States presidential election, as it was before. Also, full protect for the time being. Jd027chat 16:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the page to United States presidential election as with the 2016 election article. Also full protect the page as per above. Ixistant (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Protect per above. Hera1187 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete insufficient reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Despite hopes expressed by two editors that such sources might be added, none appeared to be forthcoming. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Karave[edit]

David Karave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A vanity biography that doesn't pass WP:BIO or notability. All but two of the sources are self referential, and I am left with no impression that this artist is encyclopedic at this point in time. Keegantalk 04:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this article, and I have to disagree that the article is at all "vanity" based. This is one of the first original articles I have written on wikipedia and I was very suprised to see it tagged for deletion before I had even completed the page. I am not a friend or family member of this artist. The artist in question has an impressive list of galleries where his work has been shown, including an appearance at the largest music & art festival in the US, of which only a very select few are chosen. He is well known in contemporary art and activism circles in Montreal and New York. I feel it would be a shame to delete the article. Footnotes have been diversified. --RoboticArtProf (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no determination yet so I would like to add that per wiki guidelines for WP:Bio if "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." Under the category "unusual/interesting" this artist passes. Even a cursory examination of the artwork should belie the fact the art in question is unique and highly unusual. Also, per wiki guidelines an artist passes notability if "(B)The person's work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" : an invitation into the largest art and music festival in the U.S. (the Bonaroo festival) would be presumed to qualify. At this point I must advocate for a bad faith nomination. Also noting that if a person with a stated knowledge of the contemporary art world could make a determination, this would seem to be the most logical route.--RoboticArtProf (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep artist seems notable. But concerns about reliable sources. Also concerned with COI issues, if any, for User:RoboticArtProf. Please elaborate. Annette46 (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 01:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. A Google News Archive search returns no results. A Google search only returns only 150 results. None of the subject's films or projects appear to be notable. Five of the seven references come from blogs or the subject's own site. The Tampa Tribune reference is not on the web, but I doubt it would be sufficient to assert the subject's notability. This isn't a reliable source either. This is just a non-notable autobiography. Cunard (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The above comment does not reference official WP:BIO eligibility, nor does it respond to official guidelines for passing WP:BIO such as those that were quoted above. This biography is one of several arts editing contributions I have made. 1 blog was endnoted, that being a blog made by a prominent newspaper head editor. 2 endnotes from the artist site were made only to back up quotes made by the artist. www.sat.qc.ca is the official site for the most well regarded new media art center in Montreal. --RoboticArtProf (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Cunard. As you are need to Wikipedia, Rob, you need to understand that this is how our AfD process works. Indeed, it does reference official WP:BIO eligibility as you need to have a lot of sources. Usually people check Google just to see how notable the subject is and if it's worth keeping or not. This is how we follow the guidelines. I would like to add that a lot of the references are written by him and there's a lot of unsourced information. The article appears to need cleanup and requires more references, if kept. Lady Galaxy 22:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From the guidelines : "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." There can be no one that disagrees that this is an extremely unusual modern artwork. Guidelines specifically state that popularity, or number of google search results is not a valid reason for deletion. Also, per wiki guidelines an artist passes notability if "(B)The person's work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" : The Bonnaroo festival is the largest and most popular art festival in US history. Only 2 out of 7 quotes are from the artist's site, and only exist to back up direct quotes from the artist within the wiki article. This artist has been attacked in the media for political reasons before and I just hope that this is not happening now. I research guidelines before writing all my articles to help ensure that that they are acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoboticArtProf (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, many editors use Google hits just as proof of how notable the subject is... even if it's the actual references that count. Lady Galaxy 02:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - Non-notable, per Cunard. Weblinks to personal websites, blogs, and web-advertisements doesn't prove notability. They certainly don't show that the guy is an "important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors".--Celtus (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appearance at major festivals is rather notable, but sources should be diversified. External reviews of his work (postive or negative) would alleviate any doubt about notability. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Amire80. Article, when wikified and diversified, will be okay, I think. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 02:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeMuDi[edit]

DeMuDi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks sources, claims the software is already defunct, and the website is dead. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'keep' Was originally part of a notable EU project. That isis now defunct has nothing to do with any former notability--keeping information about dead software is part of what an encyclopedia does. it just makes sources harder to find, but has the nominator looked? 04:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    If it was originally part of something that was notable, and is not notable itself, then merge. That it is now defunct does not mean that reliable sources with significant coverage ever existed. Have you looked? Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caixa Mágica[edit]

Caixa Mágica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks secondary sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Strong keep, while I agree the notability of this distribution worldwide may be questionale, it is certainly notable in Portugal:
  • It is used on government schools. [33] (Portuguese) and [34] (I know because I even used it myself...)
  • It is now is being distributed on computers of the project of the portuguese government "e-escolas". News about Caixa Mágica being used in "e-escolas" computers: [35] (Portuguese)
  • Keep I would ask that the sources be translated to english per WP:NONENG This is required if the sources are not available in english. Otherwise this will get a renomination benjicharlton (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aurox[edit]

Aurox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks sources and claims that the software is being discontinued. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge If the distribution is renamed to Jazz Linux, I suggest merging those two articles and redirect one of themMegaribi (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete: not very relevent, and besides, it is discontinued... SF007 (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No input = no one cares. Wizardman 00:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arudius[edit]

Arudius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 12:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siglo XXIII[edit]

Siglo XXIII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe this organization fails WP:ORG; prod removed without explanation by IP author RayAYang (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect and merge Jeremy's solution seemed to have most support. I've moved this to Italian empire and have proposed the merge. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Empire (entity, 1936–1943)[edit]

Italian Empire (entity, 1936–1943) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is essentially a content fork from Italian Colonial Empire. I am proposing this article for deletion for the following reasons:

  • The "Italian Empire" was officially declared by Mussolini in 1936 but he was just giving a name to something that was the same the day after his proclamation as the day before.
  • There is already an existing article for the "entity" that Mussolini renamed, at Italian Colonial Empire: the two were one and the same.
  • What content deserves to be at Italian Empire (entity, 1936–1943) but not Italian Colonial Empire? None, as far as I can see. Again, the two were one and the same thing after the declaration.
  • The situation is similar to Third Reich and Greater German Reich which redirect to Nazi Germany, rather than have their own article (despite the latter being the official name from 1942). Admittedly, German Reich has its own article, but this was a term that spanned eras and political administrations, and there is no German Reich (entity, 19XX-XX) article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment Although you're agreeing with my AfD, I have to say that's not true, Herr Direktor: Mussolini did declare the "Italian Empire" in 1936 (see Lowe, C.J. (2002). Italian Foreign Policy 1870-1940. Routledge.,p289). So I personally don't dispute that this thing actually existed, I just dispute that it requires a separate article from Italian Colonial Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I meant was that the state did not become an "Empire". The King did not proclaim himself the "Emperor of Italy". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DISCLAIMER: I WAS ASKED TO COMMENT. This is a goofy setup. It looks as though this article is not a content fork of the entire article, but a split-out of the section currently titled "Fascism and the "Italian Empire" (1922-1940)". However, the name Italian Empire was used only from 1936 to 1943, according to the article. At the same time, the other sections of "Italian Colonial Empire" don't seem to address the empire. Italian Empire redirects to this article; this was the official name. Therefore, I'd say move to Italian Empire, merge the sections "Fascism and the "Italian Empire" (1922-1940)" and "End of Empire (1943-1960)" into it, and redirect "Italian Colonial Empire" to "Italian Empire". JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ctjf83, I'm afraid I disagree with you there. If THRoPF hadn't notified me I (very probably) wouldn't have found this discussion. He/she was not, in my view, canvassing but simply notifying editors he/she knew were interested in the topic about this discussion. And since we're an unruly lot in this area, I'd say the notion that editors would come over and dutifully line up and say 'delete!' would be wildly over-optimistic, and I'm sure THRoPF would agree with me. On the substantive matter at hand, I'd say Jeremy's detailed analysis and proposal just about sums it up as far as I'm concerned. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Echo Jeremy and Alistair on "canvassing".
On the article, I’ll need to read them, but offhand I’m not averse to separate pages on the various stages of a country’s existence, if there is something worth saying; haven't we done that for other countries with empires? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV-fork, which is disallowed: We get a proliferation of articles along these lines. Is fascist Italy blue? Is Italy in World War 2 blue? Without some coherence and plan to the presentation of the material, we end up duplicating. As a political act the creation of the "empire" has significance, but as a geo-political entity, it is synonymous with "fascist Italy," or very nearly so. What is important is not the victory of this point of view or that, but the logical, coherent presentation of information in a way that will be most accessible and logical for readers. This name and presentation fails those vital criteria. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably merge -- This article is covering the same ground as two section of Italian Colonial Empire; we cannot have both. There are two possible solutions: (1) merge to that article (2) restructure that article so that this article can be a sub-article to one section, linked by a main template. I would prefer the merge option, but there is probably not very much content in this article to be trasferred in merging. Note I was also summoned here by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distant Journey (album)[edit]

Distant Journey (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NN album. Failed prod Toddst1 (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFD: Articles for deletion/David and the Giants‎
  • Delete. Released albums of notable bands are usually notable under WP:MUSIC#Albums, but they should have independent coverage. There are no sources here. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Can't find no independent coverage.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Self-released record. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The two "keep" arguments are weak, and the "redirect" opinions don't want to keep the content either. Any subsequent move, redirect, rename etc. is an editorial matter.  Sandstein  18:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skank[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Skank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It was nominated for deletion twice in 2006 because it was a dicdef; it survived both as "no consensus", but two years later it's still basically a dicdef. I think this should be deleted and Skank (disambiguation) should be moved to Skank. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move Skank (dance) to Skank. Why is this even at AfD? Either the root article should be the most common name or it should be the disambig. No-brainer. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Slut or move/disambiguate as suggested above. No doubt that the term skank is a dictionary definition (possibly Slut is too but that's for another place). However, there is apparently valid content or at least a redirect that can go to Skank, so no deletion needed. I fear this AFD will be deluged with people who've heard the term skank and think we thusly need an article on it... but really, what on earth can we do with this term except define it and give examples? That's not for an encyclopedia, it's a dictionary definition. Part of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" means being judicious about getting rid of dictionary definitions masquerading as encyclopedia articles. --Rividian (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is established. I know so many irl. Testmasterflex (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to slut. they pretty much mean the same thing Ctjf83Talk 04:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Dictdef. We don't redirect one dictionary definition to another, and "skank" is not "slut." It is employed for a range of meanings, most of them implying lack of hygiene rather than promiscuity, and it is similarly a far more recent and unstable bit of slang, so no redirect, no merge. Delete the dictionary definition. We are not UrbanDictionary. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to slut, to avoid this skanky dicdef. The disambiguation between skank and slut stated in this article is uncited original research, so there is no point in merging it. -Verdatum (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then move Skank (disambiguation) to this title. Per WP:NOT. There is nothing to say on this subject other than a definition that belongs (and already is) in Wiktionary. The dab page can also point to the Wiktionary definition for the term. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I just heard the word in a movie, English is not my mothertongue, and I am very grateful for finding it explained here. That's what an encyclopedia is for, isn't it? --87.234.145.146 (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Insufficient verified evidence of notability. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommaso Squitti[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tommaso Squitti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was previously deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommaso Squitti. Creator has added a new source. (The source does refer to the subject if the translator program translated "Tommaso" as "Thomas". The questions now are, is the title "Baron of Palermiti and Guarna " sufficiently notable, and is the sourcing sufficient. Speedily deleted before with a Google book source in Italian. Now sourced by a google book translation. I speedied, but reconsidered after looking more closely at the new source. It is difficult to validate sources electronically about people who lived in the 19th century. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is another source that refers to Tommasso Squitti as the Nobility of Italy, a book.
^ Nobility of Italy, The Mormon Library(The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)- UTAH
While I am a third generation Canadian I am surprised how the history of "The Nobility of Euorpe" and especially Italy has been somewhat erased from History.) I discovered 'these Squitti's over the Internet in Europe some 5 years ago and 'coincidence' suggests we may be related.
This gives me the opportunity to comment on 'The Nobility of Italy" If you remove Tommasso Squitti, he was the individual given the title of Baron suggesting that he will not show up on the site referring to the Nobility of Italy as well.
Under the Feudal system 'these" people controlled large tracts of land, and after the 'political revolutions' they lost their titles and possibly their lands to the majority ? Seems there is alot of history missing that relates to 'these people' throughout europe and russia, except countries like England who maintained their Monarchies....
Thanks

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


  • Important As a third generation Canadian I was unaware of the Squitti's 'NOBILITY' background. My grandfather was known as Baron Cesare Squitti, however the term Baron was unknown to me. It appears Italian history is ignoring the 'politically incorrect' truths prior to the formation of Italy as a country, when they had the "nobility" as did most all other European countries. The network of 'nobility' appears lost in today's 'democratic' societies. Tomasso Squitti was in fact the individual who was granted the coat of arms and other, and would appear to be the most important of the Squitti's in southern Italy.

I have yet to establish the link between my grandfather Baron Cesare Squitti from Malito, Italy, and Tomasso Squitti's from Maida, Italy. There is no doubt a connection somewhere, in fact we are all related, somehow, somewhere.

Sad that the true history of many North American's and their connections to the "nobility" of the past is being lost....

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anthøny 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Caesar J. B. Squitti: You really shouldn't be writing about your own family on Wikipedia. It's too much of a Conflict of interest --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we really related ? I would apprecaite the proof.

The issue is whether this person is notable or not. There are plenty of listings, where individuals WHO WORK FOR or who are related (perhaps Maternally) are doing listings, or for that matter, people with names that are not names...if I make myself clear.

Thanks for raising the issue. It is an important one, a conflict of interest, and that can affect the 'slant' of an article. That is very, very important. I am certain that 'history' is full of such conflicts....


--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

merge untl we have enough meaningful contents.--Freewayguy What's up? 23:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am not able to assess the reliability of the source but even if the person is verifiable there is no evidence of notability. Not every minor titled European person is notable. Fails WP:N. Smile a While (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_20&oldid=1081103026"